Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933801AbXIBNxg (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:53:36 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755711AbXIBNx0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:53:26 -0400 Received: from canuck.infradead.org ([209.217.80.40]:60828 "EHLO canuck.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754952AbXIBNxZ (ORCPT ); Sun, 2 Sep 2007 09:53:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [jffs2] [rfc] fix write deadlock regression From: David Woodhouse To: Nick Piggin Cc: Jason Lunz , lkml , jffs-dev@axis.com, Hugh Dickins , Andrew Morton In-Reply-To: <20070902132034.GA20902@wotan.suse.de> References: <20070830182354.GA25077@falooley.org> <20070831212636.GB12868@falooley.org> <20070901190602.GA5926@falooley.org> <20070902042012.GA5864@wotan.suse.de> <1188735203.3834.16.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> <20070902132034.GA20902@wotan.suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 02 Sep 2007 14:48:04 +0100 Message-Id: <1188740884.3834.22.camel@shinybook.infradead.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.10.3 (2.10.3-3.fc7.dwmw2.1) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SRS-Rewrite: SMTP reverse-path rewritten from by canuck.infradead.org See http://www.infradead.org/rpr.html Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1838 Lines: 45 On Sun, 2007-09-02 at 15:20 +0200, Nick Piggin wrote: > OK, but then hasn't the patch just made the deadlock harder to hit, > or is there some invariant that says that readpage() will never be > invoked if gc was invoked on the same page as we're commit_write()ing? > The Q/A comments aren't very sure about this. I guess from the look > of it, prepare_write/commit_write make sure the page will be uptodate > by the start of commit_write, That's the intention, yes. > and you avoid GCing the page in > prepare_write because your new page won't have any nodes allocated > yet that can possibly be GCed? We _might_ GC the page -- it might not be a new page; we might be overwriting it. But it's fine if we do. Actually it's slightly suboptimal because we'll write out the same data twice -- once in GC and then immediately afterward in the write which we were making space for. But that's not the end of the world, and it's not very common. > BTW. with write_begin/write_end, you get to control the page lock, > so for example if the readpage in prepare_write for partial writes > is *only* for the purpose of avoiding this deadlock later, you > could possibly avoid the RMW with the new aops. Maybe it would > help you with data nodes crossing page boundaries too... I'll look at that; thanks. > OK, thanks for looking at it. If you'd care to pass it on to Linus > before he releases 2.6.23 in random() % X days time... ;) Not before the Kernel Summit now, I suspect. But yes, I'll do that later today or in the morning (the linuxconf.eu conference has already started). -- dwmw2 - 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/