Bob Peterson wrote:
The problem was that the journal inodes, although protected by
a glock, were not synched with the other nodes because they don't
use the inode glock synch operations (i.e. no "glops" were defined).
Therefore, journal recovery on a journal-recovering node were causing
the blocks to get out of sync with the node that was actually trying
to use that journal as it comes back up from a reboot.
I don't understand this patch either. Maybe I have worked too long in
GFS1 so please educate me on these GFS2 internals. Comment below:
There are two possible solutions: (1) To make the journals use the
normal inode glock sync operations, or (2) To make the journal
operations take effect immediately (i.e. no caching). Although
option 1 works, it turns out to be a lot more code. Steve opted
for option 2, which is much simpler and therefore less prone to
regression errors.
Regards,
Bob Peterson
--
Signed-off-by: Bob Peterson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--
diff --git a/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c b/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c
index 58c730b..f0bcaa2 100644
--- a/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c
+++ b/fs/gfs2/ops_fstype.c
@@ -358,7 +358,7 @@ static int init_journal(struct gfs2_sbd *sdp, int undo)
ip = GFS2_I(sdp->sd_jdesc->jd_inode);
error = gfs2_glock_nq_init(ip->i_gl, LM_ST_SHARED,
- LM_FLAG_NOEXP | GL_EXACT,
+ LM_FLAG_NOEXP | GL_EXACT |
GL_NOCACHE,
&sdp->sd_jinode_gh);
if (error) {
fs_err(sdp, "can't acquire journal inode glock: %d\n",
diff --git a/fs/gfs2/recovery.c b/fs/gfs2/recovery.c
index 5ada38c..beb6c7a 100644
--- a/fs/gfs2/recovery.c
+++ b/fs/gfs2/recovery.c
@@ -469,7 +469,7 @@ int gfs2_recover_journal(struct gfs2_jdesc *jd)
};
error = gfs2_glock_nq_init(ip->i_gl, LM_ST_SHARED,
- LM_FLAG_NOEXP, &ji_gh);
+ LM_FLAG_NOEXP | GL_NOCACHE, &ji_gh);
if (error)
goto fail_gunlock_j;
} else {
This lock is requested as "SHARED" (read lock). So how does "GL_NOCACHE"
help it to "sync" with other nodes regarding to disk blocks sharing as
you described above ? For a normal EXCLUSIVE inode glock with nocache,
it will force a sync (disk blocks). However, this is a read lock. So
what is the problem this patch has solved ?
-- Wendy
