Subject: Re: +
	fs-introduce-write_begin-write_end-and-perform_write-aops.patch added to
	-mm tree
From: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@gmail.com>
To: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, mark.fasheh@oracle.com,
       ext4 <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>,
       Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>, cmm@us.ibm.com
In-Reply-To: <20070613114356.GD17547@wotan.suse.de>
References: <200705292119.l4TLJtAD011726@shell0.pdx.osdl.net>
	 <20070613134005.GA13815@localhost.sw.ru>
	 <20070613114356.GD17547@wotan.suse.de>
Content-Type: text/plain
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2007 16:07:01 -0700
Message-Id: <1181776021.21924.87.camel@dyn9047017100.beaverton.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1207
Lines: 34

On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 13:43 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote:
..
>  
> > 5) ext3_write_end:
> > 	Before  write_begin/write_end patch set we have folowing locking
> > 	order:
> > 		stop_journal(handle);
> > 		unlock_page(page);
> > 	But now order is oposite:
> > 		unlock_page(page);
> > 		stop_journal(handle);
> > 	Can we got any race condition now? I'm not sure is it actual problem,
> > 	may be somebody cant describe this.
> 
> Can we just change it to the original order? That would seem to be
> safest unless one of the ext3 devs explicitly acks it.

It would be nice to go back to original order, but its not that
simple with current structure of the code. With Nick's patches
unlock_page() happens in generic_write_end(). journal_stop() 
needs to happen after generic_write_end(). :(

Mingming, can you take a look at the current & proposed order ?
I ran into bunch of races when I tried to change the order for
->writepages() support earlier :(

Thanks,
Badari

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