2007-04-04 03:41:44

by Adrian Bunk

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: [RFC: 2.6.16 patch] jbd: journal_dirty_data re-check for unmapped buffers

This patch also seems to make sense for 2.6.16, or do I miss anything?


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: <[email protected]>
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)
+ /* 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)
+ /* 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");
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);