On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 05:37:06PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 4:47 PM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx> wrote:
> > I think something like the following patch (totally untested,
> > just an idea) should fix the issue, right?
>
> I think that is not enough.
>
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > index c4893e226fd8..555fcae9a18f 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
> > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> > struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode);
> > struct xfs_mount *mp = ip->i_mount;
> > int error = 0;
> > - int log_flushed = 0;
> > + unsigned int flushseq;
> > xfs_lsn_t lsn = 0;
> >
> > trace_xfs_file_fsync(ip);
> > @@ -143,6 +143,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> > error = file_write_and_wait_range(file, start, end);
> > if (error)
> > return error;
> > + flushseq = READ_ONCE(mp->m_flushseq);
>
> imagine that flush was submitted and completed before
> file_write_and_wait_range() but m_flushseq incremented after.
> maybe here READ m_flush_submitted_seq...
>
> >
> > if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp))
> > return -EIO;
> > @@ -181,7 +182,7 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> > }
> >
> > if (lsn) {
> > - error = _xfs_log_force_lsn(mp, lsn, XFS_LOG_SYNC, &log_flushed);
> > + error = _xfs_log_force_lsn(mp, lsn, XFS_LOG_SYNC, NULL);
> > ip->i_itemp->ili_fsync_fields = 0;
> > }
> > xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
> > @@ -193,8 +194,9 @@ xfs_file_fsync(
> > * an already allocated file and thus do not have any metadata to
> > * commit.
> > */
> > - if (!log_flushed && !XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip) &&
> > - mp->m_logdev_targp == mp->m_ddev_targp)
> > + if (!XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE(ip) &&
> > + mp->m_logdev_targp == mp->m_ddev_targp &&
> > + flushseq == READ_ONCE(mp->m_flushseq))
>
> ... and here READ m_flush_completed_seq
> if (m_flush_completed_seq > m_flush_submitted_seq)
> it is safe to skip issue flush.
> Then probably READ_ONCE() is not enough and need smb_rmb?
>
IIUC, basically we need to guarantee that a flush submits after
file_write_and_wait() and completes before we return. If we do something
like the above, I wonder if that means we could wait for the submit ==
complete if we observe submit was bumped since it was initially sampled
above (rather than issue another flush, which would be necessary if a
submit hadn't occurred))..?
If we do end up with something like this, I think it's a bit cleaner to
stuff the counter(s) in the xfs_buftarg structure and update them from
the generic buffer submit/completion code based on XBF_FLUSH. FWIW, I
suspect we could also update said counter(s) from
xfs_blkdev_issue_flush().
Brian
> > xfs_blkdev_issue_flush(mp->m_ddev_targp);
> >
> > return error;
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> > index bcb2f860e508..3c0cbb98581e 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c
> > @@ -2922,6 +2922,8 @@ xlog_state_done_syncing(
> > iclog->ic_state = XLOG_STATE_DONE_SYNC;
> > }
> >
> > + log->l_mp->m_flushseq++;
>
> I recon this should use WRITE_ONCE or smp_wmb()
> and then also increment m_flush_submitted_seq *before*
> issueing flush
>
> If state machine does not allow more than a single flush
> to be in flight (?) then the 2 seq counters could be reduced
> to single seq counter with (m_flushseq % 2) == 1 for submitted
> and (m_flushseq % 2) == 0 for completed and the test in fsync
> would be (flushseq % 2) == (READ_ONCE(mp->m_flushseq) % 2)
>
> ... maybe?
>
> Amir.
> --
> 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