From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
Remove lock and unlock super operation.
Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
---
diff -Nurp linux-3.6-rc1-orig/fs/exofs/super.c linux-3.6-rc1/fs/exofs/super.c
--- linux-3.6-rc1-orig/fs/exofs/super.c 2012-08-16 09:37:31.000000000 +0200
+++ linux-3.6-rc1/fs/exofs/super.c 2012-08-16 09:45:31.000000000 +0200
@@ -384,8 +384,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_bl
if (unlikely(ret))
goto out;
- lock_super(sb);
-
ios->length = offsetof(struct exofs_fscb, s_dev_table_oid);
memset(fscb, 0, ios->length);
fscb->s_nextid = cpu_to_le64(sbi->s_nextid);
@@ -403,8 +401,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_bl
else
sb->s_dirt = 0;
-
- unlock_super(sb);
out:
EXOFS_DBGMSG("s_nextid=0x%llx ret=%d\n", _LLU(sbi->s_nextid), ret);
ore_put_io_state(ios);
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>
> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
On 08/16/2012 03:20 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>>
>> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>
> Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
>
Are you sure? It used to be that exofs_sync_fs() could be called
concurrently.
What about two "bash -c sync" calls or a sync and an unmount
in parallel. anything protecting that?
If so then sure, but please let me test first.
Boaz
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:32 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 03:20 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> >> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
> >>
> >> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
> >
> > Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
> >
>
>
> Are you sure? It used to be that exofs_sync_fs() could be called
> concurrently.
>
> What about two "bash -c sync" calls or a sync and an unmount
> in parallel. anything protecting that?
>
> If so then sure, but please let me test first.
Umm, actually we will probably end up writing the same twice without the
lock.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
On 08/16/2012 04:10 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:32 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> On 08/16/2012 03:20 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>>>> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Are you sure? It used to be that exofs_sync_fs() could be called
>> concurrently.
>>
>> What about two "bash -c sync" calls or a sync and an unmount
>> in parallel. anything protecting that?
>>
>> If so then sure, but please let me test first.
>
> Umm, actually we will probably end up writing the same twice without the
> lock.
>
No we are not allowed to run exofs_sync_fs() concurrently because it uses
a per-alllocated scratch buffer to do it's stuff so you can end up with data
corruption on disk.
And we cannot use a spin-lock because we might sleep in ore_write()
There are some optimizations I can do here, but lets for now just do
the sb->s_lock thing, and I might decide to completely revamp the
all thing later.
Thanks
Boaz
On 08/16/2012 04:15 PM, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> On 08/16/2012 04:10 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 15:32 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>>> On 08/16/2012 03:20 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>>>>> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you sure? It used to be that exofs_sync_fs() could be called
>>> concurrently.
>>>
>>> What about two "bash -c sync" calls or a sync and an unmount
>>> in parallel. anything protecting that?
>>>
>>> If so then sure, but please let me test first.
>>
>> Umm, actually we will probably end up writing the same twice without the
>> lock.
>>
>
>
> No we are not allowed to run exofs_sync_fs() concurrently because it uses
> a per-alllocated scratch buffer to do it's stuff so you can end up with data
> corruption on disk.
>
I take that back. We kmalloc. (We used to not too).
In theory the counter in question could change mid flight and the IOs can
be submitted out of order, But the chance for that is very very slim. So
It's fine. It's a deprecated counter anyway, so I'm OK to drop it.
I'll completely remove it the next time I increment the sb version
number.
Thanks
Boaz
> And we cannot use a spin-lock because we might sleep in ore_write()
>
> There are some optimizations I can do here, but lets for now just do
> the sb->s_lock thing, and I might decide to completely revamp the
> all thing later.
>
> Thanks
> Boaz
On 08/16/2012 01:00 PM, Marco Stornelli wrote:
> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>
> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
>
ACK-by: Boaz Harrosh <[email protected]>
> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
> ---
> diff -Nurp linux-3.6-rc1-orig/fs/exofs/super.c linux-3.6-rc1/fs/exofs/super.c
> --- linux-3.6-rc1-orig/fs/exofs/super.c 2012-08-16 09:37:31.000000000 +0200
> +++ linux-3.6-rc1/fs/exofs/super.c 2012-08-16 09:45:31.000000000 +0200
> @@ -384,8 +384,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_bl
> if (unlikely(ret))
> goto out;
> - lock_super(sb);
> -
> ios->length = offsetof(struct exofs_fscb, s_dev_table_oid);
> memset(fscb, 0, ios->length);
> fscb->s_nextid = cpu_to_le64(sbi->s_nextid);
> @@ -403,8 +401,6 @@ static int exofs_sync_fs(struct super_bl
> else
> sb->s_dirt = 0;
> -
> - unlock_super(sb);
> out:
> EXOFS_DBGMSG("s_nextid=0x%llx ret=%d\n", _LLU(sbi->s_nextid), ret);
> ore_put_io_state(ios);
On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 16:15 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
> There are some optimizations I can do here, but lets for now just do
> the sb->s_lock thing, and I might decide to completely revamp the
> all thing later.
OK. But I guess an exofs-specific mutex could be used instead. We do not
have to depend on 'sb->s_lock'.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy
On 08/16/2012 04:30 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 16:15 +0300, Boaz Harrosh wrote:
>> There are some optimizations I can do here, but lets for now just do
>> the sb->s_lock thing, and I might decide to completely revamp the
>> all thing later.
>
> OK. But I guess an exofs-specific mutex could be used instead. We do not
> have to depend on 'sb->s_lock'.
>
sorry I meant sbi->s_lock. But I'm fine with the complete drop now
Thanks
Boaz
Il 16/08/2012 14:32, Boaz Harrosh ha scritto:
> On 08/16/2012 03:20 PM, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 2012-08-16 at 12:00 +0200, Marco Stornelli wrote:
>>> From: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> Remove lock and unlock super operation.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marco Stornelli <[email protected]>
>>
>> Acked-by: Artem Bityutskiy <[email protected]>
>>
>
>
> Are you sure? It used to be that exofs_sync_fs() could be called
> concurrently.
>
> What about two "bash -c sync" calls or a sync and an unmount
> in parallel. anything protecting that?
>
> If so then sure, but please let me test first.
> Boaz
>
> .
>
Yes Boaz, I agree, it's the reason I asked for a comments for exofs and
hpfs. The only reason to have a lock here is to serialize operations in
parallel on the same super block.
Marco