[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       linux-ext4
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] ext4: Check io list state and avoid an unnecessary
From:       Ted Ts'o <tytso () mit ! edu>
Date:       2011-10-31 15:02:06
Message-ID: 20111031150206.GC16825 () thunk ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 03:50:25PM +0800, Tao Ma wrote:
> sorry, but I thought I had considered this case.
> There are 2 callers. One is ext4_end_io_work(which has the bug I pointed
> out), the other is ext4_flush_complete_IO which has already done the
> check before calling ext4_end_io_nolock. And that's the reason why I
> move the check from ext4_end_io_nolock to ext4_end_io_work. So for the
> ext4_flush_complete_IO case, your new patch will spin_lock twice for the
> checking. Do I miss something here?

Ah, you're right; my mistake.  When I looked closely, though, I found
that ext4_flush_completed_IO() had a call to list_empty() without
taking the spinlock, which would also be problematic.  When I looked
more closely, I found more ways to optimize things, which also close
up a few potential (I think theoretical) race conditions.

Let me know what you think....

					- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]