Re: [PATCH 4/5] jbd: fix error handling for checkpoint io

Jan Kara
2008-06-02T12:44:33Z

On Mon 02-06-08 19:47:25, Hidehiro Kawai wrote:
> Subject: [PATCH 4/5] jbd: fix error handling for checkpoint io
>
> When a checkpointing IO fails, current JBD code doesn't check the
> error and continue journaling. This means latest metadata can be
> lost from both the journal and filesystem.
>
> This patch leaves the failed metadata blocks in the journal space
> and aborts journaling in the case of log_do_checkpoint().
> To achieve this, we need to do:
>
> 1. don't remove the failed buffer from the checkpoint list where in
> the case of __try_to_free_cp_buf() because it may be released or
> overwritten by a later transaction
> 2. log_do_checkpoint() is the last chance, remove the failed buffer
> from the checkpoint list and abort the journal
> 3. when checkpointing fails, don't update the journal super block to
> prevent the journaled contents from being cleaned. For safety,
> don't update j_tail and j_tail_sequence either
> 4. when checkpointing fails, notify this error to the ext3 layer so
> that ext3 don't clear the needs_recovery flag, otherwise the
> journaled contents are ignored and cleaned in the recovery phase
> 5. if the recovery fails, keep the needs_recovery flag
> 6. prevent cleanup_journal_tail() from being called between
> __journal_drop_transaction() and journal_abort() (a race issue
> between journal_flush() and __log_wait_for_space()
>
> Signed-off-by: Hidehiro Kawai <hidehiro.kawai.ez@hitachi.com>
Just a few minor comments:

>
> Index: linux-2.6.26-rc4/fs/jbd/checkpoint.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-2.6.26-rc4.orig/fs/jbd/checkpoint.c
> +++ linux-2.6.26-rc4/fs/jbd/checkpoint.c

<snip>

> @@ -318,6 +331,7 @@ int log_do_checkpoint(journal_t *journal
> * OK, we need to start writing disk blocks. Take one transaction
> * and write it.
> */
> + result = 0;
> spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> if (!journal->j_checkpoint_transactions)
> goto out;
> @@ -334,7 +348,7 @@ restart:
> int batch_count = 0;
> struct buffer_head *bhs[NR_BATCH];
> struct journal_head *jh;
> - int retry = 0;
> + int retry = 0, err;
>
> while (!retry && transaction->t_checkpoint_list) {
> struct buffer_head *bh;
> @@ -347,6 +361,8 @@ restart:
> break;
> }
> retry = __process_buffer(journal, jh, bhs,&batch_count);
> + if (retry < 0)
> + result = retry;
Here you update result whenever retry is < 0 and below when result == 0.
I think it's better to have these two consistent (not that it would be
currently any functional difference).

> if (!retry && (need_resched() ||
> spin_needbreak(&journal->j_list_lock))) {
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> @@ -371,14 +387,18 @@ restart:
> * Now we have cleaned up the first transaction's checkpoint
> * list. Let's clean up the second one
> */
> - __wait_cp_io(journal, transaction);
> + err = __wait_cp_io(journal, transaction);
> + if (!result)
> + result = err;
> }

> @@ -1360,10 +1370,16 @@ int journal_flush(journal_t *journal)
> spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> while (!err && journal->j_checkpoint_transactions != NULL) {
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> + mutex_lock(&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex);
> err = log_do_checkpoint(journal);
> + mutex_unlock(&journal->j_checkpoint_mutex);
> spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> }
> spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
> +
> + if (is_journal_aborted(journal))
> + return -EIO;
> +
> cleanup_journal_tail(journal);
>
> /* Finally, mark the journal as really needing no recovery.
OK, so this way you've basically serialized all users of
log_do_checkpoint(). That should be fine because performance-wise interesting
is only log_wait_for_space() and that was already serialized before. So
this change is fine with me. Only please add a comment in front of
log_do_checkpoint() that it's supposed to be called with j_checkpoint_mutex
held so that EIO propagation works correctly.

Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR