Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4+bounces-2668-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
From: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@linux.dev>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,  Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>,
  Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>,
  linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org,  linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix fast commit inode enqueueing during a full
 journal commit
In-Reply-To: <20240528105203.2q4gxqz6amgvud4l@quack3> (Jan Kara's message of
	"Tue, 28 May 2024 12:52:03 +0200")
References: <20240523111618.17012-1-luis.henriques@linux.dev>
	<20240524162231.l5r4niz7awjgfju6@quack3> <87h6ej64jv.fsf@brahms.olymp>
	<87msob45o7.fsf@brahms.olymp> <20240528103602.akx2gui5ownj25l3@quack3>
	<20240528105203.2q4gxqz6amgvud4l@quack3>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 16:50:46 +0100
Message-ID: <87h6eirl49.fsf@brahms.olymp>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue 28 May 2024 12:52:03 PM +02, Jan Kara wrote;

> On Tue 28-05-24 12:36:02, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Mon 27-05-24 16:48:24, Luis Henriques wrote:
>> > On Mon 27 May 2024 09:29:40 AM +01, Luis Henriques wrote;
>> > >>> +	/*
>> > >>> +	 * Used to flag an inode as part of the next fast commit; will be
>> > >>> +	 * reset during fast commit clean-up
>> > >>> +	 */
>> > >>> +	tid_t i_fc_next;
>> > >>> +
>> > >>
>> > >> Do we really need new tid in the inode? I'd be kind of hoping we co=
uld use
>> > >> EXT4_I(inode)->i_sync_tid for this - I can see we even already set =
it in
>> > >> ext4_fc_track_template() and used for similar comparisons in fast c=
ommit
>> > >> code.
>> > >
>> > > Ah, true.  It looks like it could be used indeed.  We'll still need =
a flag
>> > > here, but a simple bool should be enough for that.
>> >=20
>> > After looking again at the code, I'm not 100% sure that this is actual=
ly
>> > doable.  For example, if I replace the above by
>> >=20
>> > 	bool i_fc_next;
>> >=20
>> > and set to to 'true' below:
>
> Forgot to comment on this one: I don't think you even need 'bool i_fc_nex=
t'
> - simply whenever i_sync_tid is greater than committing transaction's tid,
> you move the inode to FC_Q_STAGING list in ext4_fc_cleanup().

Yeah, I got that from your other comment in the previous email.  And that
means the actual fix will be a pretty small patch (almost a one-liner).

I'm running some more tests on v3, I'll probably send it later today or
tomorrow.  Thanks a lot for your review (and patience), Jan.

Cheers,
--=20
Lu=C3=ADs