Re: [PATCH 4/4] cifs: hold cifs_oplock_mutex while doing oplock release call

On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, Jeff Layton<[email protected]> wrote:
> We have to ensure that the tcon isn't freed until after this call
> completes. After dequeuing an oplock entry, have cifsoplockd hold
> the cifs_oplock_mutex until the oplock release call completes.
>
> We don't want to hold the mutex indefinitely however, so release
> and reacquire it on each pass through the loop. That should give
> other tasks access to the queue.
>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <[email protected]>
> ---
>  fs/cifs/cifsfs.c |   21 ++++++++++++++-------
>  1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> index 4c724d5..745c3ba 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/cifsfs.c
> @@ -1004,7 +1004,6 @@ static int cifs_oplock_thread(void *dummyarg)
>                        netfid = oplock_item->netfid;
>                        list_del(&oplock_item->qhead);
>                        kmem_cache_free(cifs_oplock_cachep, oplock_item);
> -                       mutex_unlock(&cifs_oplock_mutex);
>
>                        if (inode && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
>                                cifsi = CIFS_I(inode);
> @@ -1029,12 +1028,14 @@ static int cifs_oplock_thread(void *dummyarg)
>                        }
>                        iput(inode);
>
> -                               /* releasing stale oplock after recent reconnect
> -                               of smb session using a now incorrect file
> -                               handle is not a data integrity issue but do
> -                               not bother sending an oplock release if session
> -                               to server still is disconnected since oplock
> -                               already released by the server in that case */
> +                       /*
> +                        * releasing stale oplock after recent reconnect
> +                        * of smb session using a now incorrect file
> +                        * handle is not a data integrity issue but do
> +                        * not bother sending an oplock release if session
> +                        * to server still is disconnected since oplock
> +                        * already released by the server in that case
> +                        */
>                        if (!tcon->need_reconnect) {
>                                rc = CIFSSMBLock(0, tcon, netfid,
>                                                0 /* len */ , 0 /* offset */, 0,
> @@ -1042,6 +1043,12 @@ static int cifs_oplock_thread(void *dummyarg)
>                                                false /* wait flag */);
>                                cFYI(1, ("Oplock release rc = %d", rc));

Is it OK to make an SMB call whiile holding the mutex lock?
Also wonder if rc has any meaning i.e. can it fail in any way and if so does
it have any import in this function.

>                        }
> +
> +                       /*
> +                        * release and reacquire the oplock mutex in order to
> +                        * allow tasks waiting on it to have a chance.
> +                        */
> +                       mutex_unlock(&cifs_oplock_mutex);
>                        mutex_lock(&cifs_oplock_mutex);
>                }
>                mutex_unlock(&cifs_oplock_mutex);
> --
> 1.6.0.6
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-cifs-client mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-cifs-client
>