On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 13:41 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > On Mon, 2017-04-24 at 10:12 -0400, Bob Peterson wrote:
> > > > + filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, gl->gl_vm.start, gl->gl_vm.end);
> > >
> > > This should probably have "error = ", no?
> > >
> >
> > This error is discarded in the current code after resetting the error in
> > the mapping. With the earlier patches in this set we don't need to reset
> > the error like this anymore.
> >
> > Now, if this code should doing something else with those errors, then
> > that's a separate problem.
>
> Okay, I see. My bad.
>
> > > > gfs2_ail_empty_gl(gl);
> > > >
> > > > spin_lock(&gl->gl_lockref.lock);
> > > > @@ -225,12 +223,10 @@ static void inode_go_sync(struct gfs2_glock *gl)
> > > > filemap_fdatawrite(metamapping);
> > > > if (ip) {
> > > > struct address_space *mapping = ip->i_inode.i_mapping;
> > > > - filemap_fdatawrite(mapping);
> > > > - error = filemap_fdatawait(mapping);
> > > > - mapping_set_error(mapping, error);
> > > > + filemap_write_and_wait(mapping);
> > > > + } else {
> > > > + filemap_fdatawait(metamapping);
> > > > }
> > > > - error = filemap_fdatawait(metamapping);
> > > > - mapping_set_error(metamapping, error);
> > >
> > > This part doesn't look right at all. There's a big difference in gfs2
> > > between
> > > mapping and metamapping. We need to wait for metamapping regardless.
> > >
> >
> > ...and this should wait. Basically, filemap_write_and_wait does
> > filemap_fdatawrite and then filemap_fdatawait. This is mostly just
> > replacing the existing code with a more concise helper.
>
> But this isn't a simple replacement with a helper. This is two different
> address spaces (mapping and metamapping) and you added an else in there.
>
> So with this patch metamapping gets written, and if there's an ip,
> mapping gets written but it doesn't wait for metamapping. Unless
> I'm missing something.
>
> You could replace both filemap_fdatawrites with the helper instead.
> Today's code is structured as:
>
> (a) write metamapping
> if (ip)
> (b) write mapping
> (c) wait for mapping
> (d) wait for metamapping
>
> If you use the helper for both, it becomes, (a & d)(b & c) which is probably
> acceptable. (I think we just tried to optimize what the elevator was doing).
>
> But the way you've got it coded here still looks wrong. It looks like:
> (a)
> if (ip)
> (b & c)
> ELSE -
> (d)
>
> So (d) (metamapping) isn't guaranteed to be synced at the end of the function.
> Of course, you know the modified helper functions better than I do.
> What am I missing?
>
>
<facepalm>
You're right of course. I'll fix that up in my tree.
Thanks!
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
