This patch also seems to make sense for 2.6.16, or do I miss anything?
TIA
Adrian
commit f58a74dca88d48b0669609b4957f3dd757bdc898
Author: Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat Oct 28 10:38:27 2006 -0700
[PATCH] jbd: journal_dirty_data re-check for unmapped buffers
When running several fsx's and other filesystem stress tests, we found
cases where an unmapped buffer was still being sent to submit_bh by the
ext3 dirty data journaling code.
I saw this happen in two ways, both related to another thread doing a
truncate which would unmap the buffer in question.
Either we would get into journal_dirty_data with a bh which was already
unmapped (although journal_dirty_data_fn had checked for this earlier, the
state was not locked at that point), or it would get unmapped in the middle
of journal_dirty_data when we dropped locks to call sync_dirty_buffer.
By re-checking for mapped state after we've acquired the bh state lock, we
should avoid these races. If we find a buffer which is no longer mapped,
we essentially ignore it, because journal_unmap_buffer has already decided
that this buffer can go away.
I've also added tracepoints in these two cases, and made a couple other
tracepoint changes that I found useful in debugging this.
Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
diff --git a/fs/jbd/transaction.c b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
index d5c6304..4f82bcd 100644
--- a/fs/jbd/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/jbd/transaction.c
@@ -967,6 +967,13 @@ int journal_dirty_data(handle_t *handle, struct
buffer_head *bh)
*/
jbd_lock_bh_state(bh);
spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+
+ /* Now that we have bh_state locked, are we really still mapped? */
+ if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) {
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "unmapped buffer, bailing out");
+ goto no_journal;
+ }
+
if (jh->b_transaction) {
JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "has transaction");
if (jh->b_transaction != handle->h_transaction) {
@@ -1028,6 +1035,11 @@ int journal_dirty_data(handle_t *handle, struct
buffer_head *bh)
sync_dirty_buffer(bh);
jbd_lock_bh_state(bh);
spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+ /* Since we dropped the lock... */
+ if (!buffer_mapped(bh)) {
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "buffer got
unmapped");
+ goto no_journal;
+ }
/* The buffer may become locked again at any
time if it is redirtied */
}
@@ -1824,6 +1836,7 @@ static int journal_unmap_buffer(journal_t *journal,
struct buffer_head *bh)
}
}
} else if (transaction == journal->j_committing_transaction) {
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "on committing transaction");
if (jh->b_jlist == BJ_Locked) {
/*
* The buffer is on the committing transaction's locked
@@ -1838,7 +1851,6 @@ static int journal_unmap_buffer(journal_t *journal,
struct buffer_head *bh)
* can remove it's next_transaction pointer from the
* running transaction if that is set, but nothing
* else. */
- JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "on committing transaction");
set_buffer_freed(bh);
if (jh->b_next_transaction) {
J_ASSERT(jh->b_next_transaction ==
@@ -1858,6 +1870,7 @@ static int journal_unmap_buffer(journal_t *journal,
struct buffer_head *bh)
* i_size already for this truncate so recovery will not
* expose the disk blocks we are discarding here.) */
J_ASSERT_JH(jh, transaction == journal->j_running_transaction);
+ JBUFFER_TRACE(jh, "on running transaction");
may_free = __dispose_buffer(jh, transaction);
}
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
