On Thu, Sep 08, 2011 at 11:03:40PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Thu 08-09-11 09:22:36, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > Jan,
> >
> > > @@ -420,6 +421,8 @@ writeback_single_inode(struct inode *inode, struct bdi_writeback *wb,
> > > /* Don't write the inode if only I_DIRTY_PAGES was set */
> > > if (dirty & (I_DIRTY_SYNC | I_DIRTY_DATASYNC)) {
> > > int err = write_inode(inode, wbc);
> > > + if (!err)
> > > + inode_written = true;
> > > if (ret == 0)
> > > ret = err;
> > > }
> >
> > write_inode() typically return error after redirtying the inode.
> > So the conditions inode_written=false and (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY)
> > are mostly on/off together. For the cases they disagree, it's probably
> > a filesystem bug -- at least I don't think some FS will deliberately
> > return success while redirtying the inode, or the reverse.
> There is a possibility someone else redirties the inode between the moment
> I_DIRTY bits are cleared in writeback_single_inode() and the check for
> I_DIRTY is done after ->write_inode() is called. Especially when
> write_inode() blocks waiting for some IO this isn't that hard to happen. So
> there are valid (although relatively rare) cases when inode_written is
> different from the result of I_DIRTY check.
Ah yes, that's good point.
> > > } else if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) {
> > > /*
> > > * Filesystems can dirty the inode during writeback
> > > * operations, such as delayed allocation during
> > > * submission or metadata updates after data IO
> > > - * completion.
> > > + * completion. Also inode could have been dirtied by
> > > + * some process aggressively touching metadata.
> > > + * Finally, filesystem could just fail to write the
> > > + * inode for some reason. We have to distinguish the
> > > + * last case from the previous ones - in the last case
> > > + * we want to give the inode quick retry, in the
> > > + * other cases we want to put it back to the dirty list
> > > + * to avoid livelocking of writeback.
> > > */
> > > - redirty_tail(inode, wb);
> > > + if (inode_written)
> > > + redirty_tail(inode, wb);
> >
> > Can you elaborate the livelock in the below inode_written=true case?
> > Why the sleep in the wb_writeback() loop is not enough?
> In case someone would be able to consistently trigger the race window and
> redirty the inode before we check here, we would loop for a long time
> always writing just this inode and thus effectivelly stalling other
> writeback. That's why I push redirtied inode behind other inodes in the
> dirty list.
Agreed. All the left to do is to confirm whether this addresses
Christoph's original problem.
Acked-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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
