Hi Carlos,
On 2017/8/28 17:20, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> Hi Darrick.
>
>
>>>> BTW, This patch should be applied only over branch xfs-4.14-merge, it requires
>>>> my previous patches, which are not in the master branch yet.
>>>
>>> Looks ok, but is there an xfstests case to cover this?
>>
>
> No,
>
> I still don't have a xfstests to cover it, I couldn't reproduce the problem with
> dquots yet, I'll focus more on this soon.
I had written an xfstest case for the umount hang problem which is caused by the
writeback of the dquota update, and it can be reproduced reliably. If you don't mind,
i will clean it up and post to xfstest maillist this week.
Regards,
Tao
>
>>>> if ((lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_IN_AIL) &&
>>>> - lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn) {
>>>> + (lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn) ||
>>>> + lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
>>
>
>> ...come to think of it, shouldn't there be a couple extra pairs of parentheses
>> in this somewhere?...
>>
> IIRC there is no need, && has a higher precedenc over ||, but I really don't
> mind to add an extra pair of () here.
>
>>>>
>>>> /* xfs_trans_ail_delete() drops the AIL lock. */
>>>> spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
>>>> - if (lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn)
>>>> + if (lip->li_lsn == qip->qli_flush_lsn) {
>>>> xfs_trans_ail_delete(ailp, lip, SHUTDOWN_CORRUPT_INCORE);
>>>> - else
>>>> + } else if (lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
>>>> + xfs_clear_li_failed(lip);
>>>> spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
>>>> + } else {
>>>> + spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
>>>> + }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> /*
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c
>>>> index 2c7a1629e064..35fd6d71bc42 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_dquot_item.c
>>>> @@ -137,6 +137,23 @@ xfs_qm_dqunpin_wait(
>>>> wait_event(dqp->q_pinwait, (atomic_read(&dqp->q_pincount) == 0));
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> +/*
>>>> + * Callback used to mark a buffer with XFS_LI_FAILED when items in the buffer
>>>> + * have been failed during writeback
>>>> + *
>>>> + * this informs the AIL that the dquot is already flush locked on the next push,
>>>> + * and acquires a hold on the buffer to ensure that it isn't reclaimed before
>>>> + * dirty data makes it to disk.
>>>> + */
>>>> +STATIC void
>>>> +xfs_dquot_item_error(
>>>> + struct xfs_log_item *lip,
>>>> + struct xfs_buf *bp)
>>>> +{
>>>> + ASSERT(XFS_DQ_IS_LOCKED(DQUOT_ITEM(lip)->qli_item));
>>
>> ...and isn't this qli_dquot, not qli_item?
>>
>
> Yup, you are right.
>
>> (Does this compile at all?)
>>
>
> Yes, it compiled the way it was :P
>
> I'll wait for some extra comments here, before submitting a non-RFC patch, and
> will think about how can I reproduce it on xfstests, maybe filling the
> filesystem and then playing with quotas.
>
> Thanks for the review Darrick.
>
> Cheers.
>
--
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
