Re: [GIT PULL] block/splice bits for 2.6.29
- From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 12:31:06 +0100
On Tue, Jan 27 2009, Dmitri Monakhov wrote:
Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Hi,This patch is wrong, in fact Vergard has noted this in patch log.
Collection of fixes for 2.6.29, please pull.
git://git.kernel.dk/linux-2.6-block.git for-linus
Alberto Bertogli (1):
Fix small typo in bio.h's documentation
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz (1):
block: export SSD/non-rotational queue flag through sysfs
Boaz Harrosh (1):
include/linux: Add bsg.h to the Kernel exported headers
Jens Axboe (5):
block: get rid of the manual directory counting in blktrace
block: seperate bio/request unplug and sync bits
block: add bio_rw_flagged() for testing bio->bi_rw
block: silently error an unsupported barrier bio
block: add sysfs file for controlling io stats accounting
Martin K. Petersen (3):
block: Don't verify integrity metadata on read error
block: Remove obsolete BUG_ON
block: Allow empty integrity profile
Nikanth Karthikesan (1):
Mark mandatory elevator functions in the biodoc.txt
Theodore Ts'o (1):
block: Fix documentation for blkdev_issue_flush()
Vegard Nossum (1):
splice: fix deadlock with pipe_wait() and inode locking
Hmm weird, I don't recall any such discussion. I did test it here, but
alas that doesn't of course catch all problems.
We have two problems
1) pure bug : After the patch __splice_from_pipe() looks like follows
__splice_from_pipe( pipe, sd, actor) {
..
pipe_wait(pipe, sd->u.file->f_mapping->host);
..
}
But only "actor" callback allowed to touch sd->u structure because it has
knowledge about it's type. For example:
->vmsplice_to_user
sd.u.userptr = base;
->__splice_from_pipe(pipe, &sd, pipe_to_user);
->pipe_wait(pipe, sd->u.file->f_mapping->host);
That is obviously true. Others can access it though, but only if they
know what the caller has put there. We do that in other places. As a
generic thing, it can't work.
2) File systems which use generic_file_splice_write_nolock() (filesystems
with external locking)
This filesystems may not being happy if we internally drop file's mutex
inside generic_file_splice_write_nolock(). At least this behaviour not
well documented.
Definitely patch must be redesigned.
IMHO we have to choices:
1) The simplest one:
Redesing splice locking ordering in following way
->file->i_mutex ; so file always locked before pipe
->pipe->inode->i_mutex
This allows us to preserve current pipe_wait() logic without touching
file's lock.
2) a good one:
Redesing __splice_from_pipe(), simular to do_tee()
/* ipipe: lock(); pipe_wait() if necessary; unlock()
ret = link_ipipe_prep(ipipe, flags);
if (!ret) {
/* opipe: lock(); pipe_wait() if necessary ;unlock() */
ret = link_opipe_prep(opipe, flags);//
if (!ret)
/* inode_double_lock(ipipe->inode, opipe->inode); */
ret = link_pipe(ipipe, opipe, len, flags);
Not sure I agree with your assessment on what is the best approach. The
do_tee() approach is lossy and not very solid imho, so I'd greatly
prefer just unifying the lock ordering. So some "wrapper" around the
doublelock to take the file into account would be fine. Not sure
dropping the file lock is a huge problem, but it very well could be. So
it would be better to just be able to drop the pipe lock unconditionally
as we do now, and not care for the upper lock.
I'll axe this patch until a final and proven solution is done.
--
Jens Axboe
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- References:
- [GIT PULL] block/splice bits for 2.6.29
- From: Jens Axboe
- Re: [GIT PULL] block/splice bits for 2.6.29
- From: Dmitri Monakhov
- [GIT PULL] block/splice bits for 2.6.29
- Prev by Date: Re: [PATCH v2][RESEND] Allow RT requests to pre-empt ongoing BE timeslice in CFQ.
- Next by Date: [patch-rt 0/5] more 2.6.26-rt updates
- Previous by thread: Re: [GIT PULL] block/splice bits for 2.6.29
- Next by thread: ⊕2009/1/27 您還沒有一個專屬的企業網站嗎？
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
