fuse: fix blocked_waitq wakeup
Using waitqueue_active() is racy. Make sure we issue a wake_up()
unconditionally after storing into fc->blocked. After that it's okay to
optimize with waitqueue_active() since the first wake up provides the
necessary barrier for all waiters, not the just the woken one.
Signed-off-by: Miklos Szeredi <mszeredi@redhat.com>
Fixes: 3c18ef8117
("fuse: optimize wake_up")
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org> # v3.10
This commit is contained in:
parent
4c316f2f3f
commit
908a572b80
|
@ -391,12 +391,19 @@ static void request_end(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct fuse_req *req)
|
||||||
if (test_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags)) {
|
if (test_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags)) {
|
||||||
spin_lock(&fc->lock);
|
spin_lock(&fc->lock);
|
||||||
clear_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags);
|
clear_bit(FR_BACKGROUND, &req->flags);
|
||||||
if (fc->num_background == fc->max_background)
|
if (fc->num_background == fc->max_background) {
|
||||||
fc->blocked = 0;
|
fc->blocked = 0;
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
/* Wake up next waiter, if any */
|
|
||||||
if (!fc->blocked && waitqueue_active(&fc->blocked_waitq))
|
|
||||||
wake_up(&fc->blocked_waitq);
|
wake_up(&fc->blocked_waitq);
|
||||||
|
} else if (!fc->blocked) {
|
||||||
|
/*
|
||||||
|
* Wake up next waiter, if any. It's okay to use
|
||||||
|
* waitqueue_active(), as we've already synced up
|
||||||
|
* fc->blocked with waiters with the wake_up() call
|
||||||
|
* above.
|
||||||
|
*/
|
||||||
|
if (waitqueue_active(&fc->blocked_waitq))
|
||||||
|
wake_up(&fc->blocked_waitq);
|
||||||
|
}
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
if (fc->num_background == fc->congestion_threshold && fc->sb) {
|
if (fc->num_background == fc->congestion_threshold && fc->sb) {
|
||||||
clear_bdi_congested(fc->sb->s_bdi, BLK_RW_SYNC);
|
clear_bdi_congested(fc->sb->s_bdi, BLK_RW_SYNC);
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue