Previously, there was a erroneous scenario like below.
thread 1: thread 2:
f2fs_unlink
- acquire_orphan_inode
: sbi->n_orphans++ write_checkpoint
- block_operations
: f2fs_lock_all
- do_checkpoint
: write orphan blocks with sbi->n_orphans
- unblock_operations
- f2fs_lock_op
- release_orphan_inode
- f2fs_unlock_op
During the checkpoint by thread 2, f2fs stores a wrong orphan block according
to the wrong sbi->n_orphans.
To avoid this, simply we should make cover acquire_orphan_inode too with
f2fs_lock_op.
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk....@samsung.com>
---
fs/f2fs/namei.c | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/namei.c b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
index 29f73fd..575adac 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/namei.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/namei.c
@@ -228,14 +228,14 @@ static int f2fs_unlink(struct inode *dir, struct dentry
*dentry)
if (!de)
goto fail;
+ f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
err = acquire_orphan_inode(sbi);
if (err) {
+ f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
kunmap(page);
f2fs_put_page(page, 0);
goto fail;
}
-
- f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
f2fs_delete_entry(de, page, inode);
f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
--
1.8.4.474.g128a96c
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
October Webinars: Code for Performance
Free Intel webinars can help you accelerate application performance.
Explore tips for MPI, OpenMP, advanced profiling, and more. Get the most from
the latest Intel processors and coprocessors. See abstracts and register >
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=60134071&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
