Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH] f2fs: move f2fs_balance_fs from truncate to punch_hole | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Date | Tue, 09 Apr 2013 17:56:15 +0900 |
| |
2013-04-09 (화), 15:46 +0900, Namjae Jeon: > 2013/4/9, Jason Hrycay <jhrycay@gmail.com>: > > From: Jason Hrycay <jason.hrycay@motorola.com> > > > > Move the f2fs_balance_fs out of the truncate_hole function and only > > perform that in punch_hole use case. The commit: > > > > ed60b1644e7f7e5dd67d21caf7e4425dff05dad0 > > > > intended to do this but moved it into truncate_hole to cover more > > cases. However, a deadlock scenario is possible when deleting an inode > > entry under specific conditions: > > > > f2fs_delete_entry() > > mutex_lock_op(sbi, DENTRY_OPS); > > truncate_hole() > > f2fs_balance_fs() > > mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex); > > f2fs_gc() > > write_checkpoint() > > block_operations() > > mutex_lock_op(sbi, DENTRY_OPS); > > > > Lets move it into the punch_hole case to cover the original intent of > > avoiding it during fallocate's expand_inode_data case. > > > > Change-Id: I29f8ea1056b0b88b70ba8652d901b6e8431bb27e > > Signed-off-by: Jason Hrycay <jason.hrycay@motorola.com> > Hi, > With the latest commit 9995bf953a83749abd9fa22f72ab2b0be341025a > About introducing the global locking method in ‘f2fs’, > I think we no longer will have a case of deadlock happening in this path.
Hi, Namjae. I found that this bug still exists in the new locking model. Please see the v3 patch. :) Thanks,
> > Thanks.
-- Jaegeuk Kim Samsung [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |