On 2013.07.23 at 08:56 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 01:07:32PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> > On 2013.07.22 at 20:18 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > When we made all inode updates transactional, we no longer needed
> > > the log recovery detection for inodes being newer on disk than the
> > > transaction being replayed - it was redundant as replay of the log
> > > would always result in the latest version of the inode woul dbe on
> > > disk. It was redundant, but left in place because it wasn't
> > > considered to be a problem.
> > >
> > > However, with the new "don't read inodes on create" optimisation,
> > > flushiter has come back to bite us. Essentially, the optimisation
> > > made always initialises flushiter to zero in the create transaction,
> > > and so if we then crash and run recovery and the inode already on
> > > disk has a non-zero flushiter it will skip recovery of that inode.
> > > As a result, log recovery does the wrong thing and we end up with a
> > > corrupt filesystem.
> > >
> > > Because we have to support old kernel to new kernl upgrades, we
> > > can't just get rid of the flushiter support in log recovery as we
> > > might be upgrading from a kernel that doesn't have fully transaction
> > > inode updates. Unfortunately, for v4 superblocks there is no way to
> > > guarantee that log recovery knows about this fact.
> > >
> > > We cannot add a new inode format flag to say it's a "special inode
> > > create" because it won't be understood by older kernels and so
> > > recovery could do the wrong thing on downgrade. We cannot specially
> > > detect the combination of zero mode/non-zero flushiter on disk to
> > > non-zero mode, zero flushiter in the log item during recovery
> > > because wrapping of the flushiter can result in false detection.
> > >
> > > Hence that makes this "don't use flushiter" optimisation limited to
> > > a disk format that guarantees that we don't need it. And that means
> > > the only fix here is to limit the "no read IO on create"
> > > optimisation to version 5 superblocks....
> >
> > I think your patch misses the following part:
> >
> > @@ -1054,17 +1056,15 @@ xfs_iread(
> >
> > /* shortcut IO on inode allocation if possible */
> > if ((iget_flags & XFS_IGET_CREATE) &&
> > - !(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_IKEEP)) {
> > + !(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_IKEEP) &&
> > + xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb)) {
> > /* initialise the on-disk inode core */
> > memset(&ip->i_d, 0, sizeof(ip->i_d));
> > ip->i_d.di_magic = XFS_DINODE_MAGIC;
> > ip->i_d.di_gen = prandom_u32();
> > - if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb)) {
> > - ip->i_d.di_version = 3;
> > - ip->i_d.di_ino = ip->i_ino;
> > - uuid_copy(&ip->i_d.di_uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_uuid);
> > - } else
> > - ip->i_d.di_version = 2;
> > + ip->i_d.di_version = 3;
> > + ip->i_d.di_ino = ip->i_ino;
> > + uuid_copy(&ip->i_d.di_uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_uuid);
> > return 0;
> > }
>
> Sure, it's dead code so doesn't affect the behaviour of the patch.
> I'll update it, but I need you to reproduce the problem in a simple
> manner as Mark did with this patch in place so I can find out what
> the real problem you are seeing is....
No. It's not dead code. Please look at the patch that you've posted.
For v2 inodes (my case) it doesn't change anything at all and the issue
you describe so eloquently still exists.
You wrote:
"And that means the only fix here is to limit the "no read IO on
create" to version 5 superblocks"."
and this is exactly what the hunk above does.
Mark and I have tested it and it fixes the problem for both of us...
--
Markus
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
