[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
Re: [PATCH] Re: zero-filed page on VOP_PUTPAGES
YAMAMOTO Takashi <yamt%mwd.biglobe.ne.jp@localhost> wrote:
> > It just prevents puffs_vnop_getattr to call uvm_vnp_setattr with a stall
> > value between the time dosetattr sends PUFFS_VN_SETATTR and the time it
> > calls uvm_vnp_setattr. This is enough to work around the issue if the
> > file server does not reorder requests.
> but file servers can reorder requests, can't they?
It is not specified. I observed reordering in the past, but I now
suspect that is was caused at PUFFS level, because puffs_vn_getattr()
was working on an unlocked vnode, and therefore could slice itself
within dosetattr() operations, and resize the file with the value it got
from the filesystem.
Anyway, if the fileserver reorder file size set and write operations on
its own, I see no way it can avoid data corruption by spurious truncate.
I guess this should be called a bug in the file server.
> besides that it's strongly discouraged way (i'd call it bug) to use locks,
I came up with that solution when working with the pn->pn_inresize thing
(used to keep track of the threads involved in a pending
PUFFS_VN_SETATTR, for whoever is joining the discussion). I noticed that
I needed to prevent race on accesses to pn->pn_inresize. This involved
locking the vnode in puffs_vnop_getattr(), and I realized that the lock
itself was enough to prevent the race on file resize operations.
To sum it up: I think that puffs_vnop_getattr() must lock the vnode
since it sends a request to the filesystem and then call
uvm_vnp_setsize() with the size it got. Let the vnode unlocked in that
windows is just asking for race conditions.
> the test seems broken when called with LK_SHARED held.
What happens if vn_lock(vp, LK_EXCLUSIVE|LK_RETRY) is called on a
LK_SHARED locked vnode? I would expect it to sleep until the shared lock
Main Index |
Thread Index |