On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 03:07:16PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 01:28:10PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > On Thu, May 17, 2018 at 08:56:23PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > + /* > > > + * Reinitialize the counters. The on-disk and in-core counters differ > > > + * by the number of inodes/blocks reserved by the admin, the per-AG > > > + * reservation, and any transactions in progress, so we have to > > > + * account for that. First we take the sb lock and update its > > > + * counters... > > > + */ > > > + spin_lock(&mp->m_sb_lock); > > > + delta_icount = (int64_t)mp->m_sb.sb_icount - icount; > > > + delta_ifree = (int64_t)mp->m_sb.sb_ifree - ifree; > > > + delta_fdblocks = (int64_t)mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks - fdblocks; > > > + mp->m_sb.sb_icount = icount; > > > + mp->m_sb.sb_ifree = ifree; > > > + mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks = fdblocks; > > > + spin_unlock(&mp->m_sb_lock); > > > > This seems racy to me ? i.e. the per-ag counters can change while > > we are summing them, and once we've summed them then sb counters > > can change while we are waiting for the m_sb_lock. It's looks to me > > like the summed per-ag counters are not in any way coherent > > wit the superblock or the in-core per-CPU counters, so I'm > > struggling to understand why this is safe? > > Hmm, yes, I think this is racy too. The purpose of this code is to > recompute the global counters from the AG counters after any operation > that modifies anything that would affect the icount/ifreecount/fdblocks > counters... *nod* > > We can do this sort of summation at mount time (in > > xfs_initialize_perag_data()) because the filesystem is running > > single threaded while the summation is taking place and so nothing > > is changing during th summation. The filesystem is active in this > > case, so I don't think we can do the same thing here. > > ...however, you're correct to point out that the fs must be quiesced > before we can actually do this. In other words, I think the filesystem > has to be completely frozen before we can do this. Perhaps it's better > to have the per-ag rebuilders fix only the per-ag counters and leave the > global counters alone. Then add a new scrubber that checks the summary > counters and fixes them if necessary. So the question here is whether we actually need to accurately correct the global superblock counters? We know that if we have a dirty unmount, the counters will we re-initialised on mount from the AG header information, so perhaps what we need here is a flag to tell unmount to dirty the log again after it has written the unmount record (like we currently do for quiesce). That was we can do a racy "near enough" update here to get us out of the worst of the space accounting mismatches, knowing that on the next mount it will be accurately rebuilt. Thoughts? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx -- 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
