Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Date:   Mon, 18 Mar 2019 01:04:02 +0100
From:   Dominique Martinet <asmadeus@codewreck.org>
To:     Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc:     v9fs-developer@lists.sourceforge.net,
        Linux List Kernel Mailing <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Netdev <netdev@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] 9p updates for 5.1
Message-ID: <20190318000402.GA24768@nautica>
References: <20190317142524.GA5136@nautica>
 <CAHk-=wgywWzGP-UszbL4csXpk4_h0w5PbkZYdaTpBzue82btfQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHk-=wgywWzGP-UszbL4csXpk4_h0w5PbkZYdaTpBzue82btfQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Linus Torvalds wrote on Sun, Mar 17, 2019:
> Hmm. I wonder what makes it valid to have concurrent updates to
> i_size? Yes, yes, you added that spinlock to make the update itself
> atomic on 32-bit, but it sounds a bit odd in the first place to have
> two things possibly changing the size of a file at the same time...

If the inode attributes are currently invalid (for example after
v9fs_invalidate_inode_attr()) then two concurrent user getattr requests
for the same inode will send two network requests which can both update
the i_size.

With cache=fscache or loose a write could also be concurrent with such
an update.


I plan on improving the first case with some "being revalidated" logic
now this pattern got reported but I don't think the second one can be
avoided, so that fix is still necessary in the long run afaict.


Thanks,
-- 
Dominique