On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 19:52:09 +0900
> From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: 'Lukáš Czerner' <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: 'Theodore Ts'o' <tytso@xxxxxxx>, 'linux-ext4' <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: RE: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in data journalling
> mode
>
> >
> > On Thu, 17 Apr 2014, Namjae Jeon wrote:
> >
> > > Date: Thu, 17 Apr 2014 07:29:18 +0900
> > > From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>
> > > Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> > > Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Subject: [PATCH 2/3] ext4: fix ZERO_RANGE test failure in data journalling
> > > mode
> > >
> > > From: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > xfstests generic/091 is failing when mounting ext4 with data=journal.
> > > I think that this regression is same problem that occurred prior to collapse
> > > range issue. So ZERO RANGE also need to call ext4_force_commit as
> > > collapse range.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Namjae Jeon <namjae.jeon@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > Signed-off-by: Ashish Sangwan <a.sangwan@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > fs/ext4/extents.c | 7 +++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/ext4/extents.c b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> > > index f386dd6..a64242f 100644
> > > --- a/fs/ext4/extents.c
> > > +++ b/fs/ext4/extents.c
> > > @@ -4742,6 +4742,13 @@ static long ext4_zero_range(struct file *file, loff_t offset,
> > >
> > > trace_ext4_zero_range(inode, offset, len, mode);
> > >
> > > + /* Call ext4_force_commit to flush all data in case of data=journal. */
> > > + if (ext4_should_journal_data(inode)) {
> > > + ret = ext4_force_commit(inode->i_sb);
> > > + if (ret)
> > > + return ret;
> > > + }
> >
> > Hi,
> Hi Lukas.
> >
> > it makes sense. But I have a question, maybe I do not understand it
> > correctly but what protect us from other writes coming in after we
> > force the commit ?
> Yes, Currently new write can come between ext4_force_commit and till
> we acquire mutex_lock. But this window is already present even
> without patch. Its just that in case of data=journal mode, this
> window will become slightly bigger. one possible solution coming to
> my mind is one more time calling ext4_force_commit followed by a call
> to filemap_write_and_wait_range inside mutex_lock which would sync
> data that has dirtied after 1st call.
Can we really call ext4_force_commit() inside mutex_lock ?
-Lukas
>
> Thanks!
> >
> > -Lukas
> >
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > * Write out all dirty pages to avoid race conditions
> > > * Then release them.
> > >
>
>
