[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAK896s5EV9AOenyPrHJFk7=R--RGhH0eWeVU55vnScSJmM6qwA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2022 11:06:46 +0800
From: Xin Yin <yinxin.x@...edance.com>
To: harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
Cc: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [PATCH 2/2] ext4: fast commit may miss file actions
Thanks, you are right , the EXT4_MF_FC_COMMITTING is not needed after
this change , I will do the cleanup for it , and send a v2 patches
set.
Thanks,
Xin Yin
On Sat, Jan 8, 2022 at 4:14 AM harshad shirwadkar
<harshadshirwadkar@...il.com> wrote:
>
> Makes sense. With this change, we don't really need
> EXT4_MF_FC_COMMITTING flag anymore. So, we can drop it. But other than
> that, this patch looks good.
>
> Reviewed-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
>
> On Fri, Jan 7, 2022 at 4:13 AM Xin Yin <yinxin.x@...edance.com> wrote:
> >
> > in the follow scenario:
> > 1. jbd start transaction n
> > 2. task A get new handle for transaction n+1
> > 3. task A do some actions and add inode to FC_Q_MAIN fc_q
> > 4. jbd complete transaction n and clear FC_Q_MAIN fc_q
> > 5. task A call fsync
> >
> > fast commit will lost the file actions during a full commit.
> >
> > we should also add updates to staging queue during a full commit.
> > and in ext4_fc_cleanup(), when reset a inode's fc track range, check
> > it's i_sync_tid, if it bigger than current transaction tid, do not
> > rest it, or we will lost the track range.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Xin Yin <yinxin.x@...edance.com>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/fast_commit.c | 9 ++++++---
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > index 3673d4798af3..4cea92aec7c4 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > @@ -365,7 +365,8 @@ static int ext4_fc_track_template(
> > spin_lock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
> > if (list_empty(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_fc_list))
> > list_add_tail(&EXT4_I(inode)->i_fc_list,
> > - (ext4_test_mount_flag(inode->i_sb, EXT4_MF_FC_COMMITTING)) ?
> > + (sbi->s_journal->j_flags & JBD2_FULL_COMMIT_ONGOING ||
> > + sbi->s_journal->j_flags & JBD2_FAST_COMMIT_ONGOING) ?
> > &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_STAGING] :
> > &sbi->s_fc_q[FC_Q_MAIN]);
> > spin_unlock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
> > @@ -418,7 +419,8 @@ static int __track_dentry_update(struct inode *inode, void *arg, bool update)
> > node->fcd_name.len = dentry->d_name.len;
> >
> > spin_lock(&sbi->s_fc_lock);
> > - if (ext4_test_mount_flag(inode->i_sb, EXT4_MF_FC_COMMITTING))
> > + if (sbi->s_journal->j_flags & JBD2_FULL_COMMIT_ONGOING ||
> > + sbi->s_journal->j_flags & JBD2_FAST_COMMIT_ONGOING)
> > list_add_tail(&node->fcd_list,
> > &sbi->s_fc_dentry_q[FC_Q_STAGING]);
> > else
> > @@ -1202,7 +1204,8 @@ static void ext4_fc_cleanup(journal_t *journal, int full, tid_t tid)
> > list_del_init(&iter->i_fc_list);
> > ext4_clear_inode_state(&iter->vfs_inode,
> > EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING);
> > - ext4_fc_reset_inode(&iter->vfs_inode);
> > + if (iter->i_sync_tid <= tid)
> > + ext4_fc_reset_inode(&iter->vfs_inode);
> > /* Make sure EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING bit is clear */
> > smp_mb();
> > #if (BITS_PER_LONG < 64)
> > --
> > 2.20.1
> >
Powered by blists - more mailing lists