Re: [PATCH] xfs: change xfs_update_secondary_supers to use xfS_sb_read_secondary

["Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>]

On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 10:23:46AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 04:36:56PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Wed, May 16, 2018 at 09:08:11AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 01:47:21PM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > > > 
> > > > Use the new helper to read secondary superblocks instead of opencoding
> > > > it ourselves.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > > > ---
> > > >  fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c |   10 ++++------
> > > >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> > > > index 056a76689197..40c131ebf772 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_fsops.c
> > > > @@ -191,18 +191,15 @@ xfs_growfs_data_private(
> > > >   */
> > > >  int
> > > >  xfs_update_secondary_supers(
> > > > -	xfs_mount_t		*mp)
> > > > +	struct xfs_mount	*mp)
> > > >  {
> > > > -	int			error, saved_error;
> > > > +	struct xfs_buf		*bp;
> > > >  	xfs_agnumber_t		agno;
> > > > -	xfs_buf_t		*bp;
> > > > +	int			error, saved_error;
> > > >  
> > > >  	error = saved_error = 0;
> > > >  
> > > >  	for (agno = 1; agno < mp->m_sb.sb_agcount; agno++) {
> > > > -		error = xfs_trans_read_buf(mp, NULL, mp->m_ddev_targp,
> > > > -			  XFS_AGB_TO_DADDR(mp, agno, XFS_SB_BLOCK(mp)),
> > > > -			  XFS_FSS_TO_BB(mp, 1), 0, &bp, &xfs_sb_buf_ops);
> > > >  		/*
> > > >  		 * If we get an error reading or writing alternate superblocks,
> > > >  		 * continue.  xfs_repair chooses the "best" superblock based
> > > > @@ -210,6 +207,7 @@ xfs_update_secondary_supers(
> > > >  		 * superblocks un-updated than updated, and xfs_repair may
> > > >  		 * pick them over the properly-updated primary.
> > > >  		 */
> > > > +		error = xfs_sb_read_secondary(mp, NULL, agno, &bp);
> > > >  		if (error) {
> > > >  			xfs_warn(mp,
> > > >  		"error %d reading secondary superblock for ag %d",
> > > 
> > > Why change this now when my growfs patchset ireworks it and then
> > > moves the function entirely? Doing this now just breaks that
> > > patchset unnecessarily and forces another rebase - can we move this
> > > to the end of the growfs patchset?
> > 
> > The label stuff will come after your growfs stuff... maybe I'll try this
> > again tomorrow when I'm more awake.
> 
> *nod*

Aha, just s/xfs_update_secondary_supers/xfs_update_secondary_sbs/ in
Eric's online label patch, and drop the one where he adds
xfs_update_secondary_supers.

> > Scrub wants a function to read a secondary sb, and a second one to clone
> > the primary to fix damage by getting the sb, formatting the incore sb
> > into the buffer, and writing it to disk.
> 
> This is all done in a transaction context during scrub, isn't it?
> Which means it's mostly separate to the non-transactional "update
> all secondary SB's?

Yes.  It's likely we only want to update a single secondary sb, and
updating all of them is overkill, so maybe it's fine just to open code
this one use?  Seeing as I don't think we'd ordinarily be updating only
a single secondary sb.

> > Label wants a function to read each secondary sb, format the incore sb
> > into the buffer, and write it to disk.
> 
> Yup - it can just use the function I added to rewrite all the
> secondary superblocks.
> 
> Hmmmm - just a thought here: does repair check and repair
> inconsistent labels across secondary superblocks? What about UUID
> updates? Do we have a generic need for some superblock updates to be
> atomic across all superblocks?

Online fsck checks both sb_fname and sb_uuid and complains if the
secondaries are out of date.  xfs_repair doesn't check at all.

> > Growfs wants to (read an existing ag's secondary sb | get a new ag's
> > sb), format the incore sb into the buffer, and write it to disk.
> 
> After my changes, growfs no longer reads the secondary superblocks.
> It just rewrites them all completely by rewriting the primary SB
> into them. The existing code rewrites them completely, too, so the
> read is actually redundant and, potentially, can cause the grow to
> fail.

Ok, I had wondered myself if we should unconditionally rewrite the
secondary sbs, because why would we care what the previous contents
were?

--D

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> 
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html