From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] [PATCH 3/4] xfs: remove wrapper for the fsync file operation
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2010 03:33:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100217083334.GC19943@infradead.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100217040944.GK28392@discord.disaster>
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 03:09:44PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > + xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_SHARED);
> > + if (xfs_ipincount(ip)) {
> > + if (ip->i_itemp->ili_last_lsn) {
> > + error = _xfs_log_force_lsn(ip->i_mount,
> > + ip->i_itemp->ili_last_lsn,
> > + XFS_LOG_SYNC, &log_flushed);
> > + } else {
> > + error = _xfs_log_force(ip->i_mount,
> > + XFS_LOG_SYNC, &log_flushed);
> > + }
> > + }
>
> To be technically correct, the ilock should be held over the
> pincount check and log force, as is done in xfs_iunpin_wait().
> That way we can guarantee the inode was correctly forced and not
> unpinned between the unlock/check/log force being issued. I know
> this is just a copy of the existing fsync code, but I think that
> the existing code is wrong, too. ;)
Yes, no changes to the code semantics here. But that ipincount check
is a relatively recent addition from me, too - so thanks for the
slightly delayed review as the comment is absolutely correct. I'll
prepare a patch for it
> Also, if the inode is pinned while we have it locked, then
> ip->i_itemp->ili_last_lsn is guaranteed to be set as it is updated
> in IOP_COMMITTING() which is called during transaction commit.
>
> As it is, ili_last_lsn is never reset to zero after a transaction,
> so i think the _xfs_log_force() branch will never be executed,
> either.
True, the same also applies to __xfs_iunpit_wait, I'll look into
that in another patch. This will also apply to Ben's nfsd
commit_metadata patch.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-17 8:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-02-15 9:44 [PATCH 0/4] implement optimized fdatasync Christoph Hellwig
2010-02-15 9:44 ` [PATCH 1/4] [PATCH 1/4] xfs: merge xfs_lrw.c into xfs_file.c Christoph Hellwig
2010-02-17 3:36 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-17 8:14 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-02-15 9:44 ` [PATCH 2/4] [PATCH 2/4] xfs: remove wrappers for read/write file operations Christoph Hellwig
2010-02-17 3:55 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-17 8:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
[not found] ` <20100217211355.GR28392@discord.disaster>
2010-02-17 22:41 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-25 20:33 ` Alex Elder
2010-02-15 9:44 ` [PATCH 3/4] [PATCH 3/4] xfs: remove wrapper for the fsync file operation Christoph Hellwig
2010-02-17 4:09 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-17 8:33 ` Christoph Hellwig [this message]
2010-02-15 9:44 ` [PATCH 4/4] [PATCH 4/4] xfs: implement optimized fdatasync Christoph Hellwig
2010-02-17 4:17 ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-15 21:04 ` [PATCH 0/4] " Andi Kleen
2010-02-15 21:49 ` Christoph Hellwig
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100217083334.GC19943@infradead.org \
--to=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox