From: Alex Zhuravlev <Alex.Zhuravlev@Sun.COM>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -V2 3/5] ext4: Fix the race between read_block_bitmap and
 mark_diskspace_used
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:14:27 +0300
Message-ID: <492A5453.9030801@sun.com>
References: <1227285875-18011-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1227285875-18011-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <1227285875-18011-3-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20081123140038.GC26473@mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Cc: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	cmm@us.ibm.com, sandeen@redhat.com, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
To: Theodore Tso <tytso@MIT.EDU>
In-reply-to: <20081123140038.GC26473@mit.edu>
Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org

Theodore Tso wrote:
> My bigger concern is given that we are playing games like *this*:
> 
> 		if ((cur & 31) == 0 && (len - cur) >= 32) {
> 			/* fast path: set whole word at once */
> 			addr = bm + (cur >> 3);
> 			*addr = 0xffffffff;
> 			cur += 32;
> 			continue;
> 		}

this is to avoid expensive LOCK prefix in some cases.

> without taking a lock, I'm a little surprised we haven't been
> seriously burned by other race conditions.  What's the point of
> calling mb_set_bit_atomic() and passing in a spinlock if we are doing
> this kind of check without the protection of the same spinlock?!?

why would we need a lock for a whole word bitop ?

thanks, Alex