On Mon, Oct 16, 2017 at 11:05:42AM +0800, Hou Tao wrote:
> 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.
I look forward to reviewing it.
--D
>
> 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
--
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
