On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2005, Robert Love wrote: > > On Mon, 2005-07-04 at 20:28 +0100, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > > > The below patch against 2.6.13-rc1-mm1 fixes the umount hangs caused by > > > inotify. > > > > Thank you, very much, Anton, for hacking on this over the weekend. > > You are welcome. (-: > > > It's definitely not the prettiest thing, but there may be no easier > > approach. One thing, the messy code is working around the list > > changing, doesn't invalidate_inodes() have the same problem? If so, it > > solves it differently. > > It does. It first goes over the i_sb_list and anything it finds that it > is interested in (i.e. all inodes with zero i_count), it moves the inode > (i_list) over to a private list (this is done in invalidate_list()). > Then, when it is finished accessing the i_sb_list, and all inodes of > interest (zero i_count) are on the private list, dispose_list() is called, > and all inodes on the private list are exterminated. This obviously no > longer uses i_sb_list so it does not matter that that is changing now. > > > I'm also curious if the I_WILL_FREE or i_count check fixed the bug. I > > suspect the other fix did, but we probably still want this. Or at least > > the I_WILL_FREE check. > > The i_count check is at least sensible if not required (not sure) > otherwise you do iget() on inode with zero i_count then waste your time > looking for watches (which can't be there or i_count would not be zero), > and then iput() kills off the inode and throws it out of the icache. This > would be done in invalidate_inodes() anyway, no need for you to do it > first. Even if this is not a required check it saves some cpu cycles. > > The I_WILL_FREE is definitely required otherwise you will catch inodes > that will suddenly become I_FREEING and then I_CLEAR under your feet once > you drop the inode_lock and we know that is a Bad Thing (TM) as it causes > the BUG_ON(i_state == I_CLEAR) in iput() to trigger that was reported > before (when I got drawn into inotify in the first place). > > Note that if you want to be really thorough you could wait on the inode > to be destroyed for good: > > if (inode->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_CLEAR|I_WILL_FREE)) > __wait_on_freeing_inode(inode); > > And then re-check in the i_sb_list if the inode is still there (e.g. via > prev member of next_i->i_sb_list which will no longer be "inode" if the > inode has been evicted). If the inode is still there someone > "reactivated" it while you were waiting and you need to redo the > i_count and i_state checks and deal with the inode as appropriate. > > However given this is umount we are talking about there doesn't seem to be > much point in being that thorough. > > I am not familiar enough with i_notify but _if_ it is possible for a user > to get a watch on an inode which is I_FREEING|I_CLEAR|I_WILLFREE then you > have to do the waiting otherwise you will miss that watch with I don't > know what results but probably not good ones...
Actually given that watches increment i_count, the results would be quite obvious if it were possible for this to happen. The user would see my favourite printk (see fs/super.c::generic_shutdown_super()) in dmesg! (-; printk("VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. " "Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day...\n"); Cheers, Anton -- Anton Altaparmakov <aia21 at cam.ac.uk> (replace at with @) Unix Support, Computing Service, University of Cambridge, CB2 3QH, UK Linux NTFS maintainer / IRC: #ntfs on irc.freenode.net WWW: http://linux-ntfs.sf.net/ & http://www-stu.christs.cam.ac.uk/~aia21/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/