On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 11:00:32AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 19 2018 at 10:43am -0400, > Joe Thornber <thornber@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 09:11:06AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote: > > > On Mon, May 21 2018 at 8:53pm -0400, > > > Monty Pavel <monty_pavel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > If dm_bufio_write_dirty_buffers func is called by __commit_transaction > > > > func and power loss happens during executing it, coincidencely > > > > superblock wrote correctly but some metadata blocks didn't. The reason > > > > is we write all metadata in async mode. We can guarantee that we send > > > > superblock after other blocks but we cannot guarantee that superblock > > > > write completely early than other blocks. > > > > So, We need to commit other metadata blocks before change superblock. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Monty Pavel <monty_pavel@xxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > drivers/md/dm-thin-metadata.c | 8 ++++++++ > > > > 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-thin-metadata.c b/drivers/md/dm-thin-metadata.c > > > > index 36ef284..897d7d6 100644 > > > > --- a/drivers/md/dm-thin-metadata.c > > > > +++ b/drivers/md/dm-thin-metadata.c > > > > @@ -813,6 +813,14 @@ static int __commit_transaction(struct dm_pool_metadata *pmd) > > > > if (r) > > > > return r; > > > > > > > > + r = dm_tm_commit(pmd->tm, sblock); > > > > + if (r) > > > > + return r; > > > > + > > > > + r = superblock_lock(pmd, &sblock); > > > > + if (r) > > > > + return r; > > > > + > > > > disk_super = dm_block_data(sblock); > > > > disk_super->time = cpu_to_le32(pmd->time); > > > > disk_super->data_mapping_root = cpu_to_le64(pmd->root); > > > > I don't believe you've tested this; sblock is passed to dm_tm_commit() > > uninitialised, and you didn't even bother to remove the later (and correct) > > call to dm_tm_commit(). > > I pointed out to Joe that the patch, in isolation, is decieving. It > _looks_ like sblock may be uninitialized, etc. But once the patch is > applied and you look at the entirety of __commit_transaction() it is > clear that you're reusing the existing superblock_lock() to safely > accomplish your additional call to dm_tm_commit(). > > > What is the issue that started you looking in this area? > > Right, as my previous reply asked: please clarify if you _know_ your > patch fixes an actual problem you've experienced. The more details the > better. > > Thanks, > Mike > Hi, Mike and Joe. Thanks for your reply. I read __commit_transaction many times and didn't find any problem of 2-phase commit. I use md-raid1(PCIe nvme and md-raid5) in write-behind mode to store dm-thin metadata. Test case: 1. I do copy-diff test on thin device and then reboot my machine. 2. Rebuild our device stack and exec "vgchang -ay". The thin-pool can not be established(details_root become a bitmap node and metadata's bitmap_root become a btree_node). Thanks, Monty -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
