Re: [PATCH 3/3] free inodes using destroy_inode

Dave Chinner
2008-10-21T21:04:57Z

On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 05:07:08AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 02:07:26PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > ^
> > Extra whitespace.
> >
> > ^
> > Ditto.
>
> Fixed.
>
> > Yes, makes sense to mark it bad first to avoid most of the
> > reclaim code.
>
> > Can that happen? I thought xfs_iput_new() took care of clearing the
> > I_NEW flag via unlock_new_inode() and so there is no way that flag
> > can leak through to here. perhaps a comment explaining what the
> > error path is that leads to needing this check is in order....
>
> The make_inode_bad isn't actually nessecary anymore - this was my first
> attempt at skipping the flushing in xfs_reclaim, but it was still too
> much as the radix tree removal for and inode that's not in the tree
> tripped up quite badly. So I use I_NEW here to detect these half setup
> inodes. Real I_NEW indoes still go through xfs_iput_new.

Hmmmm - I still don't see that as possible. We don't set I_NEW until
we are inside xfs_setup_inode(), which occurs after we insert
the inode into the radix tree. xfs_setup_inode() also calls
unlock_new_inode(), so the I_NEW flag is cleared before it returns,
too. So I can't really see how this check in reclaim does anything....

AFAICT, once we've inserted the new inode into the radix tree,
we can't get an error before xfs_setup_inode() is called - even
in the allocation case. Hence once we're in the radix tree,
xfs_iput_new() should be called to cleanup.

All the cases that xfs_destroy_inode() handles are before the inode
is inserted into the radix tree, so marking the XFS inode XFS_IBAD
in xfs_destroy_inode() is probably a much more reliable way to
detect immediate destroy cases in the reclaim code than relying
on I_NEW......

Thoughts?

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com