On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 07:48:21AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 02:42:43PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2022 at 07:34:37AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Wed, Jun 29, 2022 at 02:16:03PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jun 27, 2022 at 10:43:35AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > index 82cf0189c0db..0acb31093d9f 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > > > > @@ -844,6 +844,90 @@ xfs_trans_committed_bulk(
> > > > > spin_unlock(&ailp->ail_lock);
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Sort transaction items prior to running precommit operations. This will
> > > > > + * attempt to order the items such that they will always be locked in the same
> > > > > + * order. Items that have no sort function are moved to the end of the list
> > > > > + * and so are locked last (XXX: need to check the logic matches the comment).
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * This may need refinement as different types of objects add sort functions.
> > > > > + *
> > > > > + * Function is more complex than it needs to be because we are comparing 64 bit
> > > > > + * values and the function only returns 32 bit values.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static int
> > > > > +xfs_trans_precommit_sort(
> > > > > + void *unused_arg,
> > > > > + const struct list_head *a,
> > > > > + const struct list_head *b)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct xfs_log_item *lia = container_of(a,
> > > > > + struct xfs_log_item, li_trans);
> > > > > + struct xfs_log_item *lib = container_of(b,
> > > > > + struct xfs_log_item, li_trans);
> > > > > + int64_t diff;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * If both items are non-sortable, leave them alone. If only one is
> > > > > + * sortable, move the non-sortable item towards the end of the list.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + if (!lia->li_ops->iop_sort && !lib->li_ops->iop_sort)
> > > > > + return 0;
> > > > > + if (!lia->li_ops->iop_sort)
> > > > > + return 1;
> > > > > + if (!lib->li_ops->iop_sort)
> > > > > + return -1;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + diff = lia->li_ops->iop_sort(lia) - lib->li_ops->iop_sort(lib);
> > > >
> > > > I'm kinda surprised the iop_sort method doesn't take both log item
> > > > pointers, like most sorting-comparator functions? But I'll see, maybe
> > > > you're doing something clever wrt ordering of log items of differing
> > > > types, and hence the ->iop_sort implementations are required to return
> > > > some absolute priority or something.
> > >
> > > Nope, we have to order item locking based on an unchanging
> > > characteristic of the object. log items can come and go, we want to
> > > lock items in consistent ascending order, so it has to be based on
> > > some kind of physical characteristic, like inode number, block
> > > address, etc.
> > >
> > > e.g. If all objects are ordered by the physical location, we naturally
> > > get a lock order that can be applied sanely across differing object
> > > types e.g. AG headers will naturally sort and lock before buffers
> > > in the AG itself. e.g. inode cluster buffers for unlinked list
> > > manipulations will always get locked after the AGI....
> >
> > <nod> So if (say) we were going to add dquots to this scheme, we'd
> > probably want to shift all the iop_sort functions to return (say) the
> > xfs_daddr_t of the associated item?
>
> No, I don't want to tie it specifically to physical address.
> ip->i_ino is not a daddr, but it would order just fine against one.
>
> > (Practically speaking, I don't know that I'd want to tie things down to
> > the disk address quite this soon, and since it's all incore code anyway
> > I don't think the precise type of the return values matter.)
>
> Indeed, I don't even want to tie this specifically to a 64 bit
> value; it's intended that objects will return a sort key, and as
> we add more object types we'll have to think harder about the
> specific key values we use.
Ok. As there currently are no other ->iop_sort implementations and the
return values aren't encoded on disk, I'll go along with this:
Reviewed-by: Darrick J. Wong <djwong@xxxxxxxxxx>
That just leaves the hch's comments scattered throughout, and my own
comments about patch 3 and 4. Any chance this series will get a new rev
in time for 5.20?
--D
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
