> Hi, > > while reading through the checkpointing code I've realized that we > actually have to send a barrier before each update of journal superblock > after checkpointing. Attached patch does this. Just I'm not sure whether > the performance cost won't be too big. In principle, we could make this > more lightweight by using the fact that transaction commit also sends the > barrier. So we could check before sending a barrier for transaction commit > whether we are slowly running out of journal space and if so whether some > transaction isn't already checkpointed. If yes, we can happily submit > update of journal superblock after the barrier. In case journal is decently > large this should solve the checkpointing problem without introducing > noticeable overhead... Ping? Ted, any opinion? Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR > >From e749e83627c35c683114fea32695e581a487e560 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 02:12:32 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] ext4: Send barrier before updating journal superblock after checkpointing > > We have to send a disk barrier after we have finished checkpointing and before > we update the journal superblock and thus effectively remove transactions from > the journal. Otherwise the write of journal superblock can be reordered before > writes of checkpointed journal blocks and thus in case of crash these blocks > needn't be on the platter leading to filesystem corruption. > > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> > --- > fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c | 19 +++++++++---------- > 1 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c > index 30beb11..b2de17f 100644 > --- a/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c > +++ b/fs/jbd2/checkpoint.c > @@ -519,17 +519,16 @@ int jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail(journal_t *journal) > spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock); > > /* > - * If there is an external journal, we need to make sure that > - * any data blocks that were recently written out --- perhaps > - * by jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() --- are flushed out before we > - * drop the transactions from the external journal. It's > - * unlikely this will be necessary, especially with a > - * appropriately sized journal, but we need this to guarantee > - * correctness. Fortunately jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail() > - * doesn't get called all that often. > + * We need to make sure that any data blocks that were recently written > + * out --- perhaps by jbd2_log_do_checkpoint() --- are flushed out > + * before we drop the transactions from the journal. Otherwise journal > + * superblock write could be reordered before writeout of data and thus > + * we could corrupt the filesystem in case of crash. It's unlikely this > + * will be necessary, especially with a appropriately sized journal, > + * but we need this to guarantee correctness. Fortunately > + * jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail() doesn't get called all that often. > */ > - if ((journal->j_fs_dev != journal->j_dev) && > - (journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER)) > + if (journal->j_flags & JBD2_BARRIER) > blkdev_issue_flush(journal->j_fs_dev, NULL); > if (!(journal->j_flags & JBD2_ABORT)) > jbd2_journal_update_superblock(journal, 1); > -- > 1.6.4.2 > -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> SuSE CR Labs -- 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
