Re: [RFC] ext3/jbd race: releasing in-use journal_heads

[Stephen C. Tweedie]

Hi,

On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 20:31, Andrew Morton wrote:

> jbd_lock_bh_journal_head() is supposed to be a
> finegrained innermost lock whose mandate is purely for atomicity of adding
> and removing the journal_head and the b_jcount refcounting.  I don't recall
> there being any deeper meaning than that.

> It could be that we can optimise jbd_lock_bh_journal_head() away, as you
> mention.  If we have an assertion in there to check that
> jbd_lock_bh_state() is held...

Right, that was what I was thinking might be possible.  But for now I've
just done the simple patch --- make sure we don't clear
jh->b_transaction when we're just refiling buffers from one list to
another.  That should have the desired effect here without dangerous
messing around with locks.

I'm having trouble testing it, though --- I seem to be getting livelocks
in O_DIRECT running 400 fsstress processes in parallel; ring any bells? 
I get it with today's bk tree without any ext3 changes too, so at least
it's not a regression.

--Stephen

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/