Skip to content

L
linux

Linux-御风守护者 / linux
与 Fork 源项目一致

从无法访问的项目Fork

通知 1
Star 0
Fork 0
L
linux

体验新版 GitCode，发现更多精彩内容 >>

切换分支/标签
  1. 07 11月, 2008 13 次提交
  3. 31 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  5. 23 10月, 2008 2 次提交
  7. 14 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  9. 09 10月, 2008 1 次提交
  11. 20 8月, 2008 1 次提交
    • L
      vfat: fix 'sync' mount deadlock due to BKL->lock_super conversion · 5f22ca9b
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      There was another FAT BKL conversion deadlock reported by Bart
Trojanowski due to the BKL being used as a recursive lock by FAT, which
was missed because it only triggers with 'sync' (or 'dirsync') mounts.

The recursion worked for the BKL, but after the conversion to lock_super
(which uses a mutex), it just deadlocks.

Thanks to Bart for debugging this and testing the fix.  The lock
debugging information from the original report:

  =============================================
  [ INFO: possible recursive locking detected ]
  2.6.27-rc3-bisect-00448-ga7f5aaf3 #16
  ---------------------------------------------
  mv/4020 is trying to acquire lock:
   (&type->s_lock_key#9){--..}, at: [<c01a90fe>] lock_super+0x1e/0x20

  but task is already holding lock:
   (&type->s_lock_key#9){--..}, at: [<c01a90fe>] lock_super+0x1e/0x20

  other info that might help us debug this:
  3 locks held by mv/4020:
   #0:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9/1){--..}, at: [<c01b2336>] do_unlinkat+0x66/0x140
   #1:  (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#9){--..}, at: [<c01b0954>] vfs_unlink+0x84/0x110
   #2:  (&type->s_lock_key#9){--..}, at: [<c01a90fe>] lock_super+0x1e/0x20

  stack backtrace:
  Pid: 4020, comm: mv Not tainted 2.6.27-rc3-bisect-00448-ga7f5aaf3 #16
   [<c014e694>] validate_chain+0x984/0xea0
   [<c0108d70>] ? native_sched_clock+0x0/0xf0
   [<c014ee9c>] __lock_acquire+0x2ec/0x9b0
   [<c014f5cf>] lock_acquire+0x6f/0x90
   [<c01a90fe>] ? lock_super+0x1e/0x20
   [<c044e5fd>] mutex_lock_nested+0xad/0x300
   [<c01a90fe>] ? lock_super+0x1e/0x20
   [<c01a90fe>] ? lock_super+0x1e/0x20
   [<c01a90fe>] lock_super+0x1e/0x20
   [<f8b3a700>] fat_write_inode+0x60/0x2b0 [fat]
   [<c0450878>] ? _spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x48/0x80
   [<f8b3a953>] ? fat_sync_inode+0x3/0x20 [fat]
   [<f8b3a962>] fat_sync_inode+0x12/0x20 [fat]
   [<f8b37c7e>] fat_remove_entries+0xbe/0x120 [fat]
   [<f8b422ef>] vfat_unlink+0x5f/0x90 [vfat]
   [<f8b42290>] ? vfat_unlink+0x0/0x90 [vfat]
   [<c01b0968>] vfs_unlink+0x98/0x110
   [<c01b2400>] do_unlinkat+0x130/0x140
   [<c016a8f5>] ? audit_syscall_entry+0x105/0x150
   [<c01b253b>] sys_unlinkat+0x3b/0x40
   [<c01040d3>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x3f
   =======================

where the deadlock is due to the nesting of lock_super from vfat_unlink
to fat_write_inode:

 - do_unlinkat
   - vfs_unlink
     - vfat_unlink
       * lock_super
       - fat_remove_entries
         - fat_sync_inode
           - fat_write_inode
             * lock_super

and the fix is to simply remove the use of lock_super() in fat_write_inode.

The lock_super() there had been just an automatic conversion of the
kernel lock to the superblock lock, but no locking was actually needed
there, since the code in fat_write_inode already protected all relevant
accesses with a spinlock (sbi->inode_hash_lock to be exact).  The only
code inside the BKL (and thus the superblock lock) was accesses tp local
variables or calls to functions that have long been SMP-safe (i.e.
sb_bread, mark_buffe_dirty and brlese).

Bart reports:
 "Looks good.  I ran 10 parallel processes creating 1M files truncating
  them, writing to them again and then deleting them.  This patch fixes
  the issue I ran into.

  Signed-off-by: Bart Trojanowski <bart@jukie.net>"
Reported-and-tested-by: NBart Trojanowski <bart@jukie.net>
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
      5f22ca9b
  13. 03 8月, 2008 1 次提交
  15. 27 7月, 2008 2 次提交
  17. 26 7月, 2008 6 次提交
  19. 03 7月, 2008 1 次提交
  21. 21 6月, 2008 1 次提交
    • L
      Replace BKL with superblock lock in fat/msdos/vfat · 8f593427
      由 Linus Torvalds 提交于 
      This replaces the use of the BKL in the FAT family of filesystems with the
existing superblock lock instead.

The code already appears to do mostly proper locking with its own private
spinlocks (and mutexes), but while the BKL could possibly have been
dropped entirely, converting it to use the superblock lock (which is just
a regular mutex) is the conservative thing to do.

As a per-filesystem mutex, it not only won't have any of the possible
latency issues related to the BKL, but the lock is obviously private to
the particular filesystem instance and will thus not cause problems for
entirely unrelated users like the BKL can.
Signed-off-by: NLinus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: OGAWA Hirofumi <hirofumi@mail.parknet.co.jp>
Signed-off-by: NJonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
      8f593427
  23. 13 6月, 2008 1 次提交
  25. 30 4月, 2008 1 次提交
  27. 29 4月, 2008 1 次提交
  29. 28 4月, 2008 7 次提交