Jan Kara wrote:
...
>> + /* try a sync to flush delalloc space & free resvd metadata */
>> + if (!ext4_has_free_blocks(EXT4_SB(sb), 1) && dirtyblocks) {
>> + if (!ext4_journal_current_handle()) {
>> + down_read(&sb->s_umount);
>> + sync_inodes_sb(sb);
>> + up_read(&sb->s_umount);
> ext4_should_retry_alloc() is called quite deep from the filesystem. In
> particular we can hold i_mutex of some inodes etc. So I'd almost bet
> that taking s_umount sem here violates lock ranking in some code paths
> (an easy check would be to enable lockdep and stress the filesystem a
> bit).
> Also calling sync_inodes_sb() with i_mutex held just seems as a bad
> thing to do although I don't see where it could deadlock and so it's
> probably just a matter of taste...
Well, to be honest I agree with you ;) It does still feel like a hack.
> If we start writeback from ext4_nonda_switch as you do below, I think
> that we should get decent results even without synchronous writeback in
> the allocation path (maybe we'd need to tweak a bit the logic in
> ext4_nonda_switch to provide more time for writeback thread to catchup).
I think starting writeback helps a lot, but it seems that in the end we
still need a synchronous attempt when we hit a real enocpc... after I
finish dealing with this corruption thing I'll come back and look at this.
Maybe we should put the writeback in for now, and worry about the
synchronous sync-up later?
Thanks for the review,
-Eric
> Honza
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
