mirror of
https://mirrors.bfsu.edu.cn/git/linux.git
synced 2024-11-11 21:38:32 +08:00
GFS2: Drop inadequate rgrps from the reservation tree
This is just basically a resend of a patch I posted earlier. It didn't change from its original, except in diff offsets, etc: This patch fixes a bug in the GFS2 block allocation code. The problem starts if a process already has a multi-block reservation, but for some reason, another process disqualifies it from further allocations. For example, the other process might set on the GFS2_RDF_ERROR bit. The process holding the reservation jumps to label skip_rgrp, but that label comes after the code that removes the reservation from the tree. Therefore, the no longer usable reservation is not removed from the rgrp's reservations tree; it's lost. Eventually, the lost reservation causes the count of reserved blocks to get off, and eventually that causes a BUG_ON(rs->rs_rbm.rgd->rd_reserved < rs->rs_free) to trigger. This patch moves the call to after label skip_rgrp so that the disqualified reservation is properly removed from the tree, thus keeping the rgrp rd_reserved count sane. Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson <rpeterso@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Steven Whitehouse <swhiteho@redhat.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
5ce13431dd
commit
1330edbeaf
@ -1944,15 +1944,16 @@ int gfs2_inplace_reserve(struct gfs2_inode *ip, const struct gfs2_alloc_parms *a
|
||||
return 0;
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/* Drop reservation, if we couldn't use reserved rgrp */
|
||||
if (gfs2_rs_active(rs))
|
||||
gfs2_rs_deltree(rs);
|
||||
check_rgrp:
|
||||
/* Check for unlinked inodes which can be reclaimed */
|
||||
if (rs->rs_rbm.rgd->rd_flags & GFS2_RDF_CHECK)
|
||||
try_rgrp_unlink(rs->rs_rbm.rgd, &last_unlinked,
|
||||
ip->i_no_addr);
|
||||
skip_rgrp:
|
||||
/* Drop reservation, if we couldn't use reserved rgrp */
|
||||
if (gfs2_rs_active(rs))
|
||||
gfs2_rs_deltree(rs);
|
||||
|
||||
/* Unlock rgrp if required */
|
||||
if (!rg_locked)
|
||||
gfs2_glock_dq_uninit(&rs->rs_rgd_gh);
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user