Calling unlock_up() to release our new path doesn't release the
read lock on the node at level 1, because our return path has
path->slots[0] == 0, which makes unlock_up() skip unlocking that
node. Since we don't need to return that node locked, call
btrfs_unlock_up_safe() instead of unlock_up(), which will release
all nodes in the path (except the leaf of course).
For any level N >= 2, the corresponding node lock isn't released by
unlock_up() too if path->slots[N - 1] == 0.
Releasing the read lock immediately will allow concurrent writers
to write lock that node at level 1 (or higher levels if applicable)
while the btrfs_next_leaf() caller processes the leaf.
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdman...@suse.com>
---
fs/btrfs/ctree.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
index 783ea3b..8ca6761 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c
@@ -5833,7 +5833,7 @@ again:
}
ret = 0;
done:
- unlock_up(path, 0, 1, 0, NULL);
+ btrfs_unlock_up_safe(path, 1);
path->leave_spinning = old_spinning;
if (!old_spinning)
btrfs_set_path_blocking(path);
--
1.9.1
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
