Sorry for getting back late on your patchset - I was on vacation and checked your patch just now. This is a good catch! My patchset does not fix this issue. Looking forward to your V3 fix. Also, using i_sync_tid as Jan suggested sounds like a good way to handle this. - Harshad On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:50 AM Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue 28 May 2024 12:52:03 PM +02, Jan Kara wrote; > > > On Tue 28-05-24 12:36:02, Jan Kara wrote: > >> On Mon 27-05-24 16:48:24, Luis Henriques wrote: > >> > On Mon 27 May 2024 09:29:40 AM +01, Luis Henriques wrote; > >> > >>> + /* > >> > >>> + * Used to flag an inode as part of the next fast commit; will be > >> > >>> + * reset during fast commit clean-up > >> > >>> + */ > >> > >>> + tid_t i_fc_next; > >> > >>> + > >> > >> > >> > >> Do we really need new tid in the inode? I'd be kind of hoping we could use > >> > >> EXT4_I(inode)->i_sync_tid for this - I can see we even already set it in > >> > >> ext4_fc_track_template() and used for similar comparisons in fast commit > >> > >> code. > >> > > > >> > > Ah, true. It looks like it could be used indeed. We'll still need a flag > >> > > here, but a simple bool should be enough for that. > >> > > >> > After looking again at the code, I'm not 100% sure that this is actually > >> > doable. For example, if I replace the above by > >> > > >> > bool i_fc_next; > >> > > >> > and set to to 'true' below: > > > > Forgot to comment on this one: I don't think you even need 'bool i_fc_next' > > - simply whenever i_sync_tid is greater than committing transaction's tid, > > you move the inode to FC_Q_STAGING list in ext4_fc_cleanup(). > > Yeah, I got that from your other comment in the previous email. And that > means the actual fix will be a pretty small patch (almost a one-liner). > > I'm running some more tests on v3, I'll probably send it later today or > tomorrow. Thanks a lot for your review (and patience), Jan. > > Cheers, > -- > Luís
