Skip to content
  1. Apr 18, 2010
  3. Apr 17, 2010
    • Dave Chinner's avatar
      xfs: don't warn on EAGAIN in inode reclaim · f1d486a3
      Dave Chinner authored 
      

Any inode reclaim flush that returns EAGAIN will result in the inode
reclaim being attempted again later. There is no need to issue a
warning into the logs about this situation.

Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
      f1d486a3
    • Dave Chinner's avatar
      xfs: ensure that sync updates the log tail correctly · b6f8dd49
      Dave Chinner authored 
      

Updates to the VFS layer removed an extra ->sync_fs call into the
filesystem during the sync process (from the quota code).
Unfortunately the sync code was unknowingly relying on this call to
make sure metadata buffers were flushed via a xfs_buftarg_flush()
call to move the tail of the log forward in memory before the final
transactions of the sync process were issued.

As a result, the old code would write a very recent log tail value
to the log by the end of the sync process, and so a subsequent crash
would leave nothing for log recovery to do. Hence in qa test 182,
log recovery only replayed a small handle for inode fsync
transactions in this case.

However, with the removal of the extra ->sync_fs call, the log tail
was now not moved forward with the inode fsync transactions near the
end of the sync procese the first (and only) buftarg flush occurred
after these transactions went to disk. The result is that log
recovery now sees a large number of transactions for metadata that
is already on disk.

This usually isn't a problem, but when the transactions include
inode chunk allocation, the inode create transactions and all
subsequent changes are replayed as we cannt rely on what is on disk
is valid. As a result, if the inode was written and contains
unlogged changes, the unlogged changes are lost, thereby violating
sync semantics.

The fix is to always issue a transaction after the buftarg flush
occurs is the log iѕ not idle or covered. This results in a dummy
transaction being written that contains the up-to-date log tail
value, which will be very recent. Indeed, it will be at least as
recent as the old code would have left on disk, so log recovery
will behave exactly as it used to in this situation.

Signed-off-by: default avatarDave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: default avatarChristoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: default avatarAlex Elder <aelder@sgi.com>
      b6f8dd49
  5. Apr 16, 2010
  7. Apr 15, 2010
  9. Apr 14, 2010