From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Wed, 21 May 2008 21:31:08 -0700 (PDT) Received: from larry.melbourne.sgi.com (larry.melbourne.sgi.com [134.14.52.130]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with SMTP id m4M4V20k009402 for ; Wed, 21 May 2008 21:31:03 -0700 Date: Thu, 22 May 2008 14:31:50 +1000 From: David Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH] make inode reclaim wait for log I/O to complete Message-ID: <20080522043150.GM173056135@sgi.com> References: <482A77A9.5040806@sgi.com> <20080514064451.GF155679365@sgi.com> <4834EBB7.5010200@sgi.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4834EBB7.5010200@sgi.com> Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: David Chinner , xfs-dev , xfs-oss On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:42:47PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > David Chinner wrote: > >On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 03:24:57PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > >>An xfs inode can be destroyed before log I/O involving that inode > >>is complete. We need to wait for the inode to be unpinned before > >>tearing it down. ..... > >>--- fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c_1.757 2008-05-12 12:02:45.000000000 +1000 > >>+++ fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c 2008-05-12 12:28:15.000000000 +1000 > >>@@ -3324,6 +3324,7 @@ xfs_finish_reclaim( > >> * because we're gonna reclaim the inode anyway. > >> */ > >> if (error) { > >>+ xfs_iunpin_wait(ip); > >> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL); > >> goto reclaim; > >> } > > > >We can't get an error from xfs_iflush() from here that hasn't > >already passed through xfs_iunpin_wait() in xfs_iflush(). > >Hence we should never see a pinned inode through this path. > > Okay, good point. I'll remove that one. I thought about removing > the XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN() and dirty inode checks from xfs_finish_reclaim() > and calling xfs_iflush() anyway. It will abort if it's a clean inode > or it will do the unpin and then abort if it's a forced shutdown. > It would make the code in xfs_finish_reclaim() a bit cleaner. I also > wouldn't need to export xfs_iunpin_wait(). Thoughts? Sounds like a fine plan. Please comment it appropriately, though. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner Principal Engineer SGI Australian Software Group