Fix a direct I/O locking issue revealed by the new mutex code.
Affects only XFS (i.e. DIO_OWN_LOCKING case) - currently it is not possible to get i_mutex locking correct when using DIO_OWN direct I/O locking in a filesystem due to indeterminism in the possible return code/lock/unlock combinations. This can cause a direct read to attempt a double i_mutex unlock inside XFS. We're now ensuring __blockdev_direct_IO always exits with the inode i_mutex (still) held for a direct reader. Tested with the three different locking modes (via direct block device access, ext3 and XFS) - both reading and writing; cannot find any regressions resulting from this change, and it clearly fixes the mutex_unlock warning originally reported here: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=114189068126253&w=2 Signed-off-by: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com> Acked-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
This commit is contained in:
parent
3759fa9c55
commit
3fb962bde4
@ -1155,15 +1155,16 @@ direct_io_worker(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
|
||||
* For writes, i_mutex is not held on entry; it is never taken.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* DIO_LOCKING (simple locking for regular files)
|
||||
* For writes we are called under i_mutex and return with i_mutex held, even though
|
||||
* it is internally dropped.
|
||||
* For writes we are called under i_mutex and return with i_mutex held, even
|
||||
* though it is internally dropped.
|
||||
* For reads, i_mutex is not held on entry, but it is taken and dropped before
|
||||
* returning.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* DIO_OWN_LOCKING (filesystem provides synchronisation and handling of
|
||||
* uninitialised data, allowing parallel direct readers and writers)
|
||||
* For writes we are called without i_mutex, return without it, never touch it.
|
||||
* For reads, i_mutex is held on entry and will be released before returning.
|
||||
* For reads we are called under i_mutex and return with i_mutex held, even
|
||||
* though it may be internally dropped.
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Additional i_alloc_sem locking requirements described inline below.
|
||||
*/
|
||||
@ -1182,7 +1183,8 @@ __blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
|
||||
ssize_t retval = -EINVAL;
|
||||
loff_t end = offset;
|
||||
struct dio *dio;
|
||||
int reader_with_isem = (rw == READ && dio_lock_type == DIO_OWN_LOCKING);
|
||||
int release_i_mutex = 0;
|
||||
int acquire_i_mutex = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
if (rw & WRITE)
|
||||
current->flags |= PF_SYNCWRITE;
|
||||
@ -1225,7 +1227,6 @@ __blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
|
||||
* writers need to grab i_alloc_sem only (i_mutex is already held)
|
||||
* For regular files using DIO_OWN_LOCKING,
|
||||
* neither readers nor writers take any locks here
|
||||
* (i_mutex is already held and release for writers here)
|
||||
*/
|
||||
dio->lock_type = dio_lock_type;
|
||||
if (dio_lock_type != DIO_NO_LOCKING) {
|
||||
@ -1236,7 +1237,7 @@ __blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
|
||||
mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
|
||||
if (dio_lock_type != DIO_OWN_LOCKING) {
|
||||
mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
|
||||
reader_with_isem = 1;
|
||||
release_i_mutex = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
retval = filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, offset,
|
||||
@ -1248,7 +1249,7 @@ __blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
|
||||
|
||||
if (dio_lock_type == DIO_OWN_LOCKING) {
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
|
||||
reader_with_isem = 0;
|
||||
acquire_i_mutex = 1;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -1269,11 +1270,13 @@ __blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
|
||||
nr_segs, blkbits, get_blocks, end_io, dio);
|
||||
|
||||
if (rw == READ && dio_lock_type == DIO_LOCKING)
|
||||
reader_with_isem = 0;
|
||||
release_i_mutex = 0;
|
||||
|
||||
out:
|
||||
if (reader_with_isem)
|
||||
if (release_i_mutex)
|
||||
mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
|
||||
else if (acquire_i_mutex)
|
||||
mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
|
||||
if (rw & WRITE)
|
||||
current->flags &= ~PF_SYNCWRITE;
|
||||
return retval;
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user