On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 12:51:11PM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > On 11/25/2010 12:06 PM, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 11:28:14AM +0200, Boaz Harrosh wrote: > > >>> Index: linux-2.6/fs/exofs/file.c > >>> =================================================================== > >>> --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/exofs/file.c 2010-11-19 16:50:00.000000000 +1100 > >>> +++ linux-2.6/fs/exofs/file.c 2010-11-19 16:50:07.000000000 +1100 > >>> @@ -48,11 +48,6 @@ static int exofs_file_fsync(struct file > >>> struct inode *inode = filp->f_mapping->host; > >>> struct super_block *sb; > >>> > >>> - if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY)) > >>> - return 0; > >>> - if (datasync && !(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_DATASYNC)) > >>> - return 0; > >>> - > >>> ret = sync_inode_metadata(inode, 1); > >>> > >>> /* This is a good place to write the sb */ > >>> > >> > >> Is that a good enough fix for the issue in your opinion? > >> Or is there more involved? > > > > For the inode dirty bit race problem, yes it should fix it. > > sync_inode_metadata basically makes the same checks without > > races (in a subsequent patch I re-introduced the datasync > > optimisation). > > > > > > > > > Well in your fsync, you need to wait for inode writeback > > that might have been started by an asynchronous write_inode. > > > > All I'm calling is sync_inode_metadata(,1) which calls sync_inode() > which calls writeback_single_inode(sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL). It gets > a little complicated but from the looks of it, even though the > call to .write_inode() is not under any lock the state machine there > will do inode_wait_for_writeback() if there was one in motion > all ready. ? > > And it looks like writeback_single_inode() does all the proper > checks in the correct order for these flags above. > > So current code in exofs_file_fsync() looks scary to me. I would > like to push your above patch for this Kernel. (I'll repost it) It does not get it right, because of the situation I described above. Background writeout can come in first, and clear the inode dirty bits, and call your ->write_inode for async writeout. That means you skip doing the exofs_put_io_state(), and (I presume) this means you aren't waiting for write completion there. What then happens is that sync_inode_metadata() from your fsync does not call ->write_inode because the inode dirty bits are clear. It's basically a noop. So you need to either make your .write_inode always synchronous, or wait for it in your .fsync and .sync_fs. > > Also, with your sync_inode_metadata call, you shouldn't need the > > sync_inode call by the looks. > > > > What? I missed you. You mean I don't need to sync_inode_metadata(,wait==1), > or what did you mean? Sorry, I was looking at the wrong code, ignore that. Nick -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
