On 08/10/2018 09:02 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 08:54:00AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:

quoted

On 08/10/2018 08:48 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 10:31:40AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote:

quoted

This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs.

If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned
by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in
xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function
xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called.  This means that
xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop
looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode.

Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us
a page which it found with an elevated refcount.

Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <redacted>
Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <redacted>
---

Sorry resend, forgot to add Jan's reviewed-by.

v2:
- Rename parameter from did_unlock to retry (Jan)

 fs/xfs/xfs_file.c |    9 ++++-----
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644
--- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
+++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c

@@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter(
 
 static void
 xfs_wait_dax_page(
-	struct inode		*inode,
-	bool			*did_unlock)
+	struct inode		*inode)
 {
 	struct xfs_inode        *ip = XFS_I(inode);
 
-	*did_unlock = true;
 	xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL);
 	schedule();
 	xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL);

@@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int
 xfs_break_dax_layouts(
 	struct inode		*inode,
 	uint			iolock,
-	bool			*did_unlock)
+	bool			*retry)

Uhhh, this hunk doesn't apply.  xfs_break_dax_layouts doesn't have an
iolock parameter anymore; was this not generated off of xfs for-next?

Sorry. It was generated against 4.18-rc8. I'll respin patch against xfs
for-next.

I think it's just a matter of taking the old patch and changing
"did_unlock" to "retry", right?  If so, I'll just change that and be
done with this one. :)

For the conflict part yes. Thanks! :)

--D

quoted

quoted

--D

quoted

 {
 	struct page		*page;
 

@@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts(
 	if (!page)
 		return 0;
 
+	*retry = true;
 	return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount,
 			atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE,
-			0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock));
+			0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode));
 }
 
 int

--

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html