On Tue 20-05-14 02:33:23, Thavatchai Makphaibulchoke wrote:
> Please see my one comment below.
>
> BTW, I've run aim7 on your before I notice what I commented below. There
> are workloads that my patch outperform yours and vice versa. I will have
> to redo it over again.
>
> On 05/15/2014 02:17 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > @@ -2631,13 +2644,18 @@ int ext4_orphan_del(handle_t *handle, struct inode *inode)
> > if (!sbi->s_journal && !(sbi->s_mount_state & EXT4_ORPHAN_FS))
> > return 0;
> >
> > - mutex_lock(&sbi->s_orphan_lock);
> > + WARN_ON_ONCE(!(inode->i_state & (I_NEW | I_FREEING)) &&
> > + !mutex_is_locked(&inode->i_mutex));
> > + /* Do this quick check before taking global s_orphan_lock. */
> > if (list_empty(&ei->i_orphan))
> > - goto out;
> > + return 0;
> >
> > - ino_next = NEXT_ORPHAN(inode);
> > - prev = ei->i_orphan.prev;
> > + if (handle) {
> > + /* Grab inode buffer early before taking global s_orphan_lock */
> > + err = ext4_reserve_inode_write(handle, inode, &iloc);
> > + }
> >
> > + mutex_lock(&sbi->s_orphan_lock);
> > jbd_debug(4, "remove inode %lu from orphan list\n", inode->i_ino);
> >
>
> Should set prev = ei->i_orphan.prev; here, instead of down below where it
> has already been removed from the list.
Bah, I'm sorry for causing extra work to you. That's a really stupid
mistake. Thanks for finding that! Also I've realized we cannot really
reliably do
ext4_mark_iloc_dirty(handle, i_prev, &iloc2);
outside of s_orphan_lock because that inode may be reclaimed the moment
after we drop s_orphan_lock. So I had to remove that optimization as well
and move the call back under s_orphan_lock. I'm running xfstests now
(updated so they include also the test Ted found failing) to verify
correctness again and then I'll get my performance numbers with fixed
patches.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
