Searched hist:ed0ca140 (Results 1 – 1 of 1) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | transaction.c | ed0ca140 Tue Jun 14 15:22:15 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: set no_trans_join after trying to expand the transaction
We can lockup if we try to allow new writers join the transaction and we have
flushoncommit set or have a pending snapshot. This is because we set
no_trans_join and then loop around and try to wait for ordered extents again.
The problem is the ordered endio stuff needs to join the transaction, which it
can't do because no_trans_join is set. So instead wait until after this loop to
set no_trans_join and then make sure to wait for num_writers == 1 in case
anybody got started in between us exiting the loop and setting no_trans_join.
This could easily be reproduced by mounting -o flushoncommit and running xfstest
13. It cannot be reproduced with this patch. Thanks,
Reported-by: Jim Schutt <jaschut@sandia.gov>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
ed0ca140 Tue Jun 14 15:22:15 CDT 2011 Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com> Btrfs: set no_trans_join after trying to expand the transaction
We can lockup if we try to allow new writers join the transaction and we have
flushoncommit set or have a pending snapshot. This is because we set
no_trans_join and then loop around and try to wait for ordered extents again.
The problem is the ordered endio stuff needs to join the transaction, which it
can't do because no_trans_join is set. So instead wait until after this loop to
set no_trans_join and then make sure to wait for num_writers == 1 in case
anybody got started in between us exiting the loop and setting no_trans_join.
This could easily be reproduced by mounting -o flushoncommit and running xfstest
13. It cannot be reproduced with this patch. Thanks,
Reported-by: Jim Schutt <jaschut@sandia.gov>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
|