Thread (9 messages) 9 messages, 2 authors, 2011-08-31

Re: [PATCH 1/2] xfs: fix xfs_mark_inode_dirty during umount

From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Date: 2011-08-30 06:24:25

On Sat, Aug 27, 2011 at 01:57:44AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
During umount we do not add a dirty inode to the lru and wait for it to
become clean first, but force writeback of data and metadata with
I_WILL_FREE set.  Currently there is no way for XFS to detect that the
inode has been redirtied for metadata operations, as we skip the
mark_inode_dirty call during teardown.  Fix this by setting i_update_core
nanually in that case, so that the inode gets flushed during inode reclaim.

Alternatively we could enable calling mark_inode_dirty for inodes in
I_WILL_FREE state, and let the VFS dirty tracking handle this.  I decided
against this as we will get better I/O patterns from reclaim compared to
the synchronous writeout in write_inode_now, and always marking the inode
dirty in some way from xfs_mark_inode_dirty is a better safetly net in
either case.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>

Index: linux-2.6/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c	2011-08-26 12:31:19.090631739 +0200
+++ linux-2.6/fs/xfs/xfs_iops.c	2011-08-26 12:35:43.692531800 +0200
@@ -70,9 +70,8 @@ xfs_synchronize_times(
 }
 
 /*
- * If the linux inode is valid, mark it dirty.
- * Used when committing a dirty inode into a transaction so that
- * the inode will get written back by the linux code
+ * If the linux inode is valid, mark it dirty, else mark the dirty state
+ * in the XFS inode to make sure we pick it up when reclaiming the inode.
  */
 void
 xfs_mark_inode_dirty_sync(
@@ -82,6 +81,10 @@ xfs_mark_inode_dirty_sync(
 
 	if (!(inode->i_state & (I_WILL_FREE|I_FREEING)))
 		mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode);
+	else {
+		barrier();
+		ip->i_update_core = 1;
+	}
 }
Why the barrier()? Isn't that just a compiler barrier? If you are
worried about catching the update vs clearing it in transaction
commit, shouldn't that use smp_mb() instead (in both places)?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
Keyboard shortcuts
hback out one level
jnext message in thread
kprevious message in thread
ldrill in
Escclose help / fold thread tree
?toggle this help