Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:d5a5:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id gn37csp1923967pxb; Thu, 7 Oct 2021 18:57:12 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzsXLnQ/ro5slhvgLmne64ymIulRrfciNOAAHxHUvcsnLgV4Q/aWDUomI7WeJGnbDiKIE93 X-Received: by 2002:a63:340c:: with SMTP id b12mr2441954pga.241.1633658232475; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:57:12 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1633658232; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=ZO/p97RPpHfPsdKTUtHNtcw62xXoKpH4OOnhTO+wzEyDJ8T474NEcNkA/IFMHahEJC tplU5YEHFwet/pKVFJKe4Skn6yE4xlvECIGKnDgrRyaNr+2Jo4RfGFQ0bhlAz6cfCim2 FMDIFBH5bwVx5koV6NT6k1fmg4BLpd3DJz+9UXUuxEh8tr/9cY2WETBcjEmk+7gSy7lC vv/I2Dea8R1yXLVrid/uZWlhD6fIHzDqfRDmHBwjBGneSkSWZdmSGvD+W6swuBF2rVAS 4ePgyWjgoBx1Af439TuNcj7ZSo+ejgZIO3QWoKuL8o+NqYldxndNapk7tPPDQxXoGItk Fc/w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to :mime-version:user-agent:date:message-id:from:cc:references:to :subject; bh=Y7KT8eqIFEFwL+tigRhsajJBDhDlgx1wMhu3lr5yvc8=; b=rdAfUGaJzjPcdcHo1PhjThygiEKfQ+C5wsFSia2xq2hsaL3pgrIR2xPSeLiu/w/hM7 hHgRa3KaO8PJ3fFiTAHQVLYdBvXNpyv3WnwNY8Ad4zOqEpBnJ5/ZFPXPQkuugv3grBEu zjC2U8K681DOPwMfUPLPR52LQtVBTEJsKShSgCGDP9Rqzpxhln9GslIklU0SqWuIdRRP lWQTC5lqMnQjt3+hPUQEg9HaO9DTel8l8Z/OJZXjeOrPOuaTBhfV/PNGqd3yPXD06CRd AQ4wAFGGPn+5RICMUoM43fM6G/nxSjgQs8R522KeWfIjClir8Y3fPl5G0UTZn9wixV4b 9CDg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id d184si1193352pgc.536.2021.10.07.18.56.58; Thu, 07 Oct 2021 18:57:12 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=huawei.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229489AbhJHB6k (ORCPT + 99 others); Thu, 7 Oct 2021 21:58:40 -0400 Received: from szxga02-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.188]:23353 "EHLO szxga02-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229487AbhJHB6k (ORCPT ); Thu, 7 Oct 2021 21:58:40 -0400 Received: from dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.54]) by szxga02-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4HQWQr3xRvzbcxj; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 09:52:20 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.174.178.185] (10.174.178.185) by dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA256_P256) id 15.1.2308.8; Fri, 8 Oct 2021 09:56:44 +0800 Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/6] ext4: introduce last_check_time record previous check time To: Jan Kara References: <20210911090059.1876456-1-yebin10@huawei.com> <20210911090059.1876456-3-yebin10@huawei.com> <20211007123100.GG12712@quack2.suse.cz> CC: , , , From: yebin Message-ID: <615FA55B.5070404@huawei.com> Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2021 09:56:43 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.1.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20211007123100.GG12712@quack2.suse.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.174.178.185] X-ClientProxiedBy: dggems704-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.181) To dggeme754-chm.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.100) X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On 2021/10/7 20:31, Jan Kara wrote: > On Sat 11-09-21 17:00:55, Ye Bin wrote: >> kmmpd: >> ... >> diff = jiffies - last_update_time; >> if (diff > mmp_check_interval * HZ) { >> ... >> As "mmp_check_interval = 2 * mmp_update_interval", 'diff' always little >> than 'mmp_update_interval', so there will never trigger detection. >> Introduce last_check_time record previous check time. >> >> Signed-off-by: Ye Bin > I think the check is there only for the case where write_mmp_block() + > sleep took longer than mmp_check_interval. I agree that should rarely > happen but on a really busy system it is possible and in that case we would > miss updating mmp block for too long and so another node could have started > using the filesystem. I actually don't see a reason why kmmpd should be > checking the block each mmp_check_interval as you do - mmp_check_interval > is just for ext4_multi_mount_protect() to know how long it should wait > before considering mmp block stale... Am I missing something? > > Honza I'm sorry, I didn't understand the detection mechanism here before. Now I understand the detection mechanism here. As you said, it's just an abnormal protection. There's really no problem. >> --- >> fs/ext4/mmp.c | 14 +++++++++----- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ext4/mmp.c b/fs/ext4/mmp.c >> index 12af6dc8457b..c781b09a78c9 100644 >> --- a/fs/ext4/mmp.c >> +++ b/fs/ext4/mmp.c >> @@ -152,6 +152,7 @@ static int kmmpd(void *data) >> int mmp_update_interval = le16_to_cpu(es->s_mmp_update_interval); >> unsigned mmp_check_interval; >> unsigned long last_update_time; >> + unsigned long last_check_time; >> unsigned long diff; >> int retval = 0; >> >> @@ -170,6 +171,7 @@ static int kmmpd(void *data) >> >> memcpy(mmp->mmp_nodename, init_utsname()->nodename, >> sizeof(mmp->mmp_nodename)); >> + last_check_time = jiffies; >> >> while (!kthread_should_stop() && !sb_rdonly(sb)) { >> if (!ext4_has_feature_mmp(sb)) { >> @@ -198,17 +200,18 @@ static int kmmpd(void *data) >> } >> >> diff = jiffies - last_update_time; >> - if (diff < mmp_update_interval * HZ) >> + if (diff < mmp_update_interval * HZ) { >> schedule_timeout_interruptible(mmp_update_interval * >> HZ - diff); >> + diff = jiffies - last_update_time; >> + } >> >> /* >> * We need to make sure that more than mmp_check_interval >> - * seconds have not passed since writing. If that has happened >> - * we need to check if the MMP block is as we left it. >> + * seconds have not passed since check. If that has happened >> + * we need to check if the MMP block is as we write it. >> */ >> - diff = jiffies - last_update_time; >> - if (diff > mmp_check_interval * HZ) { >> + if (jiffies - last_check_time > mmp_check_interval * HZ) { >> struct buffer_head *bh_check = NULL; >> struct mmp_struct *mmp_check; >> >> @@ -234,6 +237,7 @@ static int kmmpd(void *data) >> goto wait_to_exit; >> } >> put_bh(bh_check); >> + last_check_time = jiffies; >> } >> >> /* >> -- >> 2.31.1 >>