On Thu, Jun 03, 2021 at 08:23:21AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > On Wed, Jun 02, 2021 at 08:12:46PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > From: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > When we decide to mark an inode sick, clear the DONTCACHE flag so that > > the incore inode will be kept around until memory pressure forces it out > > of memory. This increases the chances that the sick status will be > > caught by someone compiling a health report later on. > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > fs/xfs/xfs_health.c | 5 +++++ > > fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c | 3 ++- > > 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_health.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_health.c > > index 8e0cb05a7142..824e0b781290 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_health.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_health.c > > @@ -231,6 +231,11 @@ xfs_inode_mark_sick( > > ip->i_sick |= mask; > > ip->i_checked |= mask; > > spin_unlock(&ip->i_flags_lock); > > + > > + /* Keep this inode around so we don't lose the sickness report. */ > > + spin_lock(&VFS_I(ip)->i_lock); > > + VFS_I(ip)->i_state &= ~I_DONTCACHE; > > + spin_unlock(&VFS_I(ip)->i_lock); > > If I follow the scrub code correctly, it will grab a dontcache reference > on the inode, so presumably the intent here is to clear that status once > we've identified some problem to keep the inode around. Seems > reasonable. <nod> I'll expand the comment: /* * Keep this inode around so we don't lose the sickness report. * Scrub grabs inodes with DONTCACHE assuming that most inode * are ok, which is not the case here. */ > > > } > > > > /* Mark parts of an inode healed. */ > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > index c3f912a9231b..0e2b6c05e604 100644 > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_icache.c > > @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ > > #include "xfs_dquot.h" > > #include "xfs_reflink.h" > > #include "xfs_ialloc.h" > > +#include "xfs_health.h" > > > > #include <linux/iversion.h> > > > > @@ -648,7 +649,7 @@ xfs_iget_cache_miss( > > * time. > > */ > > iflags = XFS_INEW; > > - if (flags & XFS_IGET_DONTCACHE) > > + if ((flags & XFS_IGET_DONTCACHE) && xfs_inode_is_healthy(ip)) > > d_mark_dontcache(VFS_I(ip)); > > This one I'm less clear on.. we've just allocated ip above and haven't > made it accessible yet. What's the use case for finding an unhealthy > inode here? Hm. I think I went overboard looking for DONTCACHE here, and it doesn't make any sense to make this change. Ok, dropped. --D > > Brian > > > ip->i_udquot = NULL; > > ip->i_gdquot = NULL; > > >
