From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Yan Zheng" <yanzheng@21cn.com>
Subject: Re: inode data not getting included in commits?
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 2008 09:26:49 +0800
Message-ID: <3d0408630812181726g7b1be6ey787ff0e6105cfa80@mail.gmail.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0812181536060.10446@cobra.newdream.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
To: "Sage Weil" <sage@newdream.net>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0812181536060.10446@cobra.newdream.net>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

2008/12/19 Sage Weil <sage@newdream.net>:
> Hi Chris-
>
> I noticed some data and metadata getting out of sync on disk, despite
> wrapping my writes with btrfs transactions.  After digging into it a bit,
> it appears to be a larger problem with inode size/data getting written
> during a regular commit.
>
> I have a test program append a few bytes at a time to a few different
> files, in a loop.  I let it run until I see a btrfs transaction commit
> (via a printk at the bottom of btrfs_commit_transaction).  Then 'reboot -f
> -n'.  After remounting, all files exist but are 0 bytes, and debug-tree
> shows a bunch of empty files.  I would expect to see either the sizes when
> the commit happend (a few hundred KB in my case), or no files at all;
> there was actually no point in time when any of the files were 0 bytes.
>
> Similarly, if I do the same but wait for a few commits to happen, after
> remount the file sizes reflect the size from around the next-to-last
> commit, not the last commit.
>
> This is probably more information than you need, but my original test was
> a bit more complicated, with weirder results.  Append to each file, then
> write it's size to an xattr on another file.  Wrap both operations in a
> transaction.  Start it up, run 'sync', then reboot -f -n.  When I remount
> the size and xattr are out of sync by exactly one iteration: the xattr
> reflects the size that resulted from _two_ writes back, not the
> immediately preceeding write.  If anything I would expect to see a larger
> actual size than xattr value (for example if the start/end transaction
> ioctls weren't working)...
>
> sage
>
>
>
> #include <stdio.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <stdlib.h>
> #include <sys/types.h>
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <fcntl.h>
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
>        while (1) {
>                int r, fd, pos, i = rand() % 10;
>                char a[20];
>
>                sprintf(a, "%d.log", i);
>                fd = open(a, O_CREAT|O_APPEND|O_WRONLY, 0600);
>                r = write(fd, "foobarfoo\n", 10);
>                pos = lseek(fd, 0, SEEK_CUR);
>                printf("write %s = %d, size = %d\n", a, r, pos);
>                close(fd);
>        }
> }
>

This is the desired behaviour of data=ordered. Btrfs transaction commit
don't flush data, and metadata wont get updated until data IO complete.

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.btrfs/869/match=new+data+ordered+code

Regards
Yan Zheng