From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <019206925c24941d4c6592964c40a290@terzarima.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] kfs locks
From: Charles Forsyth <forsyth@terzarima.net>
In-Reply-To: <200403071755.i27HtbcR080605@adat.davidashen.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed;
	boundary="upas-hyppkfntogjzlhknlxyqfqxuqq"
Date: Sun,  7 Mar 2004 19:56:34 +0000
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1f656536-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--upas-hyppkfntogjzlhknlxyqfqxuqq
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

the intent is that the sync command ensures that all current IO has gone
to disc without allowing file system activity
meanwhile--that's what the rlock of mainlock does--
but syncproc is allowed to run
concurrently with file system activity
to encourage the disc to be reasonably up to date
but without ensuring it.
there are interlocks on the buffers themselves (for instance)
to prevent confusion between several processes active
at once, whether for file system activity or syncproc.

--upas-hyppkfntogjzlhknlxyqfqxuqq
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by lavoro; Sun Mar  7 17:56:48 GMT 2004
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id E353B19DD2; Sun,  7 Mar 2004 12:57:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.4.6])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP
	id 12E6A19AD3; Sun,  7 Mar 2004 12:57:12 -0500 (EST)
X-Original-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Received: by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server, from userid 60001)
	id 5C4F319B11; Sun,  7 Mar 2004 12:56:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adat.davidashen.net (unknown [217.113.20.242])
	by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id E8A3E19A91
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun,  7 Mar 2004 12:56:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from adat.davidashen.net (localhost.davidashen.net [127.0.0.1])
	by adat.davidashen.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.8) with ESMTP id i27Htbiq080606
	for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:55:37 +0400 (AMT)
	(envelope-from dvd@adat.davidashen.net)
Received: (from dvd@localhost)
	by adat.davidashen.net (8.12.8p1/8.12.8/Submit) id i27HtbcR080605
	for 9fans@cse.psu.edu; Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:55:37 +0400 (AMT)
From: David Tolpin <dvd@davidashen.net>
Message-Id: <200403071755.i27HtbcR080605@adat.davidashen.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=KOI8-R
Subject: [9fans] kfs locks
Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu
X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu>
List-Archive: <https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/>
Date: Sun, 7 Mar 2004 21:55:37 +0400 (AMT)
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.63 (2004-01-11) on psuvax1.cse.psu.edu
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.63
X-Spam-Level: 

Hi,

cmd_sync sets 

rlock(&mainlock); 

...
syncall();
...
runlock(&mainlock);

...
syncproc, the background process forked by kfs, runs 
syncblock()
without setting rlock(&mainlock)

Can it the cause that I am getting wrenwrite errors after
'check f' on startup, if cmd_sync is not called after cmd_check
and before forking 'sync' and 'serve'?

I am still struggling to understand the problem. I've changed
the disk to be sure and still can reproduce the error if cmd_sync
is not called after the list of free blocks is rebuilt after blackdown.

David Tolpin
--upas-hyppkfntogjzlhknlxyqfqxuqq--