Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4+bounces-2681-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <87h6eirl49.fsf@brahms.olymp>
In-Reply-To: <87h6eirl49.fsf@brahms.olymp>
From: harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 17:01:19 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD+ocbwjeRVS3PL3AL+HKQ=VYm=MRZa1JOesZvERije4KFn7Vw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] ext4: fix fast commit inode enqueueing during a full
 journal commit
To: Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@linux.dev>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@dilger.ca>, 
	linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Sorry for getting back late on your patchset - I was on vacation and
checked your patch just now. This is a good catch! My patchset does
not fix this issue. Looking forward to your V3 fix.

Also, using i_sync_tid as Jan suggested sounds like a good way to handle th=
is.

- Harshad


On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 8:50=E2=80=AFAM Luis Henriques <luis.henriques@linu=
x.dev> wrote:
>
> 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 =
could use
> >> > >> EXT4_I(inode)->i_sync_tid for this - I can see we even already se=
t it in
> >> > >> ext4_fc_track_template() and used for similar comparisons in fast=
 commit
> >> > >> code.
> >> > >
> >> > > Ah, true.  It looks like it could be used indeed.  We'll still nee=
d a flag
> >> > > here, but a simple bool should be enough for that.
> >> >
> >> > After looking again at the code, I'm not 100% sure that this is actu=
ally
> >> > doable.  For example, if I replace the above by
> >> >
> >> >    bool i_fc_next;
> >> >
> >> > and set to to 'true' below:
> >
> > Forgot to comment on this one: I don't think you even need 'bool i_fc_n=
ext'
> > - simply whenever i_sync_tid is greater than committing transaction's t=
id,
> > 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,
> --
> Lu=C3=ADs