Hey.
> > +/*
> > + * Requeue a failed buffer for writeback
> > + *
> > + * Return true if the buffer has been re-queued properly, false otherwise
> > + */
> > +bool
> > +xfs_buf_resubmit_failed_buffers(
> > + struct xfs_inode *ip,
> > + struct xfs_log_item *lip,
> > + struct list_head *buffer_list)
> > +{
> > + struct xfs_log_item *next;
> > + struct xfs_buf *bp;
> > + bool ret;
> > +
> > + bp = lip->li_buf;
> > +
> > + /* Clear XFS_LI_FAILED flag from all items before resubmit
> > + *
> > + * XFS_LI_FAILED set/clear is protected by xa_lock, caller this
> > + * function already have it acquired
> > + */
> > + for (; lip; lip = next) {
> > + next = lip->li_bio_list;
> > + lip->li_flags &= ~XFS_LI_FAILED;
> > + xfs_buf_rele(bp);
>
> We need to check that the log item has LI_FAILED set before we release
> the buffer because it's possible for the buffer to have a mix of failed
> and recently flushed (not failed) items. We should set ->li_buf = NULL
> wherever we clear LI_FAILED as well.
>
> A couple small inline helpers to fail/unfail log items correctly (i.e.,
> xfs_log_item_[fail|clear]() or some such) might help to make sure we get
> the reference counting right. We could also assert that the correct lock
> is held from those helpers.
>
Agreed, will queue it for V4
> > + }
> > +
> > + /* Add this buffer back to the delayed write list */
> > + xfs_buf_lock(bp);
> > + if (!xfs_buf_delwri_queue(bp, buffer_list))
> > + ret = false;
> > + else
> > + ret = true;
> > +
> > + xfs_buf_unlock(bp);
> > + return ret;
> > +}
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.h
> > index f7eba99..32aceae 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.h
> > @@ -70,6 +70,8 @@ void xfs_buf_attach_iodone(struct xfs_buf *,
> > xfs_log_item_t *);
> > void xfs_buf_iodone_callbacks(struct xfs_buf *);
> > void xfs_buf_iodone(struct xfs_buf *, struct xfs_log_item *);
> > +bool xfs_buf_resubmit_failed_buffers(struct xfs_inode *, struct xfs_log_item *,
> > + struct list_head *);
> >
> > extern kmem_zone_t *xfs_buf_item_zone;
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
> > index 08cb7d1..2f5a49e 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
> > @@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
> > #include "xfs_error.h"
> > #include "xfs_trace.h"
> > #include "xfs_trans_priv.h"
> > +#include "xfs_buf_item.h"
> > #include "xfs_log.h"
> >
> >
> > @@ -475,6 +476,26 @@ xfs_inode_item_unpin(
> > wake_up_bit(&ip->i_flags, __XFS_IPINNED_BIT);
> > }
> >
> > +STATIC void
> > +xfs_inode_item_error(
> > + struct xfs_log_item *lip,
> > + struct xfs_buf *bp,
> > + unsigned int bflags)
> > +{
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * The buffer writeback containing this inode has been failed
> > + * mark it as failed and unlock the flush lock, so it can be retried
> > + * again.
> > + * Use xa_lock to avoid races with other log item state changes.
> > + */
> > + spin_lock(&lip->li_ailp->xa_lock);
>
> I'd push the ->xa_lock up into caller and cycle it once over the list
> rather than once per item. This is more consistent with the locking
> pattern for successful I/Os.
>
I considered it too, and decided to use spin_lock/unlock on each interaction to
avoid having it locked for a long time, but I don't think there is any harm in
using a single lock/unlock.
> > + xfs_buf_hold(bp);
> > + lip->li_flags |= XFS_LI_FAILED;
> > + lip->li_buf = bp;
>
> Also, while I think this is technically Ok based on the current
> implementation, I think we should also test that LI_FAILED is not
> already set and only hold the buf in that case (i.e., the previously
> mentioned helper). This helps prevent a landmine if the
> implementation/locking/etc. changes down the road.
>
> I think it would be fine to assert that LI_FAILED is not set already if
> we wanted to, though, as long as there's a brief comment as well.
>
> > + spin_unlock(&lip->li_ailp->xa_lock);
> > +}
> > +
> > STATIC uint
> > xfs_inode_item_push(
> > struct xfs_log_item *lip,
> > @@ -504,6 +525,18 @@ xfs_inode_item_push(
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > + * The buffer containing this item failed to be written back
> > + * previously. Resubmit the buffer for IO.
> > + */
> > + if (lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
> > + if (!xfs_buf_resubmit_failed_buffers(ip, lip,
> > + buffer_list))
> > + rval = XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING;
> > +
> > + goto out_unlock;
> > + }
>
> I think this needs to go at least before the ilock. We don't need the
> latter lock because the inode is already flushed. Somebody else could be
> holding ilock and blocked on the flush lock. If that occurs, we'll never
> make progress.
It should be after the ilock IIRC, having it before the ilock will deadlock it
any unmount when there are still inodes to be destroyed.
>
> I also think we should lock/unlock the buffer here rather than down in
> the helper. Hmm, maybe even queue it as well so it's clear what's going
> on. For example, something like:
>
> if (lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
> xfs_buf_lock(bp);
> xfs_buf_clear_failed_items(bp);
> if (!xfs_buf_delwri_queue(bp, buffer_list))
> rval = XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING;
> xfs_buf_unlock(bp);
> goto out_unlock;
> }
>
Well, we could do that, but we would need to duplicate this code between inode
and dquot item, while keeping the helper as-is, we can re-use it in both inode
and dquot.
> ... but that is mostly just aesthetic.
>
> > +
> > + /*
> > * Stale inode items should force out the iclog.
> > */
> > if (ip->i_flags & XFS_ISTALE) {
> > @@ -622,7 +655,8 @@ static const struct xfs_item_ops xfs_inode_item_ops = {
> > .iop_unlock = xfs_inode_item_unlock,
> > .iop_committed = xfs_inode_item_committed,
> > .iop_push = xfs_inode_item_push,
> > - .iop_committing = xfs_inode_item_committing
> > + .iop_committing = xfs_inode_item_committing,
> > + .iop_error = xfs_inode_item_error
> > };
> >
> >
> > @@ -710,7 +744,8 @@ xfs_iflush_done(
> > * the AIL lock.
> > */
> > iip = INODE_ITEM(blip);
> > - if (iip->ili_logged && blip->li_lsn == iip->ili_flush_lsn)
> > + if ((iip->ili_logged && blip->li_lsn == iip->ili_flush_lsn) ||
> > + lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED)
> > need_ail++;
> >
> > blip = next;
> > @@ -718,7 +753,8 @@ xfs_iflush_done(
> >
> > /* make sure we capture the state of the initial inode. */
> > iip = INODE_ITEM(lip);
> > - if (iip->ili_logged && lip->li_lsn == iip->ili_flush_lsn)
> > + if ((iip->ili_logged && lip->li_lsn == iip->ili_flush_lsn) ||
> > + lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED)
> > need_ail++;
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -739,6 +775,8 @@ xfs_iflush_done(
> > if (INODE_ITEM(blip)->ili_logged &&
> > blip->li_lsn == INODE_ITEM(blip)->ili_flush_lsn)
> > mlip_changed |= xfs_ail_delete_one(ailp, blip);
> > + else if (blip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED)
> > + blip->li_flags &= ~XFS_LI_FAILED;
>
> This needs to do the full "unfail" sequence as well (another place to
> call the helper).
>
> > }
> >
> > if (mlip_changed) {
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > index 3486517..86c3464 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h
> > @@ -49,6 +49,7 @@ typedef struct xfs_log_item {
> > struct xfs_ail *li_ailp; /* ptr to AIL */
> > uint li_type; /* item type */
> > uint li_flags; /* misc flags */
> > + struct xfs_buf *li_buf; /* real buffer pointer */
> > struct xfs_log_item *li_bio_list; /* buffer item list */
> > void (*li_cb)(struct xfs_buf *,
> > struct xfs_log_item *);
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
> > index 9056c0f..36e08dd 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
> > @@ -687,13 +687,13 @@ xfs_trans_ail_update_bulk(
> > bool
> > xfs_ail_delete_one(
> > struct xfs_ail *ailp,
> > - struct xfs_log_item *lip)
> > + struct xfs_log_item *lip)
> > {
> > struct xfs_log_item *mlip = xfs_ail_min(ailp);
> >
> > trace_xfs_ail_delete(lip, mlip->li_lsn, lip->li_lsn);
> > xfs_ail_delete(ailp, lip);
> > - lip->li_flags &= ~XFS_LI_IN_AIL;
> > + lip->li_flags &= ~(XFS_LI_IN_AIL | XFS_LI_FAILED);
>
> ... and the same thing here.
>
I agree with the helpers, and I'll queue them up for V4, I'll just wait for some
more reviews on this version before sending V4.
Thanks for the review Brian.
Cheers
--
Carlos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
