[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090910131007.GC31907@mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 2009 09:10:07 -0400
From: Theodore Tso <tytso@....edu>
To: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: fsync on ext[34] working only by an accident
On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 04:34:55PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
> mark_buffer_dirty -> __set_page_dirty -> __mark_inode_dirty
We need to be careful here. First of all, mark_buffer_dirty() on the
code paths you are talking about is being passed a metadata buffer
head. As such, has Jan has pointed out, the bh is part of the buffer
cache, so the page->mapping of associated with bh->b_page is the inode
of the block device --- *not* the ext4 inode.
Secondly, __set_page_dirty calls __mark_inode_dirty passing in
I_DIRTY_PAGES --- which should be a hint. What Jan is talking about
is where we set the inode flags I_DIRTY_SYNC and I_DIRTY_DATASYNC:
* I_DIRTY_SYNC Inode is dirty, but doesn't have to be written on
* fdatasync(). i_atime is the usual cause.
* I_DIRTY_DATASYNC Data-related inode changes pending. We keep track of
* these changes separately from I_DIRTY_SYNC so that we
* don't have to write inode on fdatasync() when only
* mtime has changed in it.
This is important because ext4_sync_file() (which is called by fsync()
and fdatasync()) uses this logic to determine whether or not to call
sync_inode(), which is what will force a commit when wbc.sync_mode is
set to WB_SYNC_ALL.
In fact, I think the problem is worse than Jan is pointing out,
because it's not enough that vfs_fq_alloc_space() is calling
mark_inode_dirty(), since that only sets I_DIRTY_SYNC. When we touch
i_size or i_block[], we need to make sure that I_DIRTY_DATASYNC is
set, so that fdatasync() will force a commit.
I think the right thing to do is to create an
_ext[34]_mark_inode_dirty() which takes an extra argument, which
controls whether or not we set I_DIRTY_SYNC or I_DIRTY_DATASYNC. In
fact, most of the time, we want to be setting I_DIRTY_DATASYNC, so we
should probably have ext[34]_mark_inode_dirty() call
_ext[34]_mark_inode_dirty() with I_DIRTY_DATASYNC, and then create a
ext[34]_mark_inode_nodatasync() version passes in I_DIRTY_SYNC.
This will cause pdflush to call ext4_write_inode() more frequently,
but pdflush calls write_inode with wait=0, and ext4_write_inode() is a
no-op in that case.
BTW, while I was looking into this, I noted that the comments ahead of
ext[34]_mark_inode_dirty are out of date; they date back to a time
when when prune_icache actually was responsible for cleaning dirty
inodes; these days, that honor is owned by fs-writeback.c and
pdflush.) Also, the second half of the comments in
ext4_write_inode(), where they reference mark_inode_dirty() are also
painfully out of date, and somewhat misleading as a result.
Does this make sense to every one?
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists