Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1434465 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Pranay Kr. Srivastava" <pranjas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-06-30 13:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-07-05 05:30 +0200 |
| Articles | 4 — 3 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
[PATCH 1/1]ext4: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE when marking buffer dirty "Pranay Kr. Srivastava" <pranjas@gmail.com> - 2016-06-30 13:20 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1]ext4: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE when marking buffer dirty Pranay Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com> - 2016-07-04 09:10 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1]ext4: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE when marking buffer dirty Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> - 2016-07-04 16:30 +0200
Re: [PATCH 1/1]ext4: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE when marking buffer dirty Pranay Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com> - 2016-07-05 05:30 +0200
| From | "Pranay Kr. Srivastava" <pranjas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-06-30 13:20 +0200 |
| Subject | [PATCH 1/1]ext4: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE when marking buffer dirty |
| Message-ID | <rPIaJ-to-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
Signed-off-by: Pranay Kr. Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com>
---
fs/ext4/super.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
index 3822a5a..8f10715 100644
--- a/fs/ext4/super.c
+++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
@@ -4327,20 +4327,6 @@ static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
if (!sbh || block_device_ejected(sb))
return error;
- if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
- /*
- * Oh, dear. A previous attempt to write the
- * superblock failed. This could happen because the
- * USB device was yanked out. Or it could happen to
- * be a transient write error and maybe the block will
- * be remapped. Nothing we can do but to retry the
- * write and hope for the best.
- */
- ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "previous I/O error to "
- "superblock detected");
- clear_buffer_write_io_error(sbh);
- set_buffer_uptodate(sbh);
- }
/*
* If the file system is mounted read-only, don't update the
* superblock write time. This avoids updating the superblock
@@ -4371,7 +4357,23 @@ static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
&EXT4_SB(sb)->s_freeinodes_counter));
BUFFER_TRACE(sbh, "marking dirty");
ext4_superblock_csum_set(sb);
+ lock_buffer(sbh);
+ if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
+ /*
+ * Oh, dear. A previous attempt to write the
+ * superblock failed. This could happen because the
+ * USB device was yanked out. Or it could happen to
+ * be a transient write error and maybe the block will
+ * be remapped. Nothing we can do but to retry the
+ * write and hope for the best.
+ */
+ ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "previous I/O error to "
+ "superblock detected");
+ clear_buffer_write_io_error(sbh);
+ set_buffer_uptodate(sbh);
+ }
mark_buffer_dirty(sbh);
+ unlock_buffer(sbh);
if (sync) {
error = __sync_dirty_buffer(sbh,
test_opt(sb, BARRIER) ? WRITE_FUA : WRITE_SYNC);
--
1.9.1
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pranay Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 09:10 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rR6aZ-2Cq-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1434465 |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Pranay Kr. Srivastava
<pranjas@gmail.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Pranay Kr. Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com>
> ---
> fs/ext4/super.c | 30 ++++++++++++++++--------------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/ext4/super.c b/fs/ext4/super.c
> index 3822a5a..8f10715 100644
> --- a/fs/ext4/super.c
> +++ b/fs/ext4/super.c
> @@ -4327,20 +4327,6 @@ static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
>
> if (!sbh || block_device_ejected(sb))
> return error;
> - if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
> - /*
> - * Oh, dear. A previous attempt to write the
> - * superblock failed. This could happen because the
> - * USB device was yanked out. Or it could happen to
> - * be a transient write error and maybe the block will
> - * be remapped. Nothing we can do but to retry the
> - * write and hope for the best.
> - */
> - ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "previous I/O error to "
> - "superblock detected");
> - clear_buffer_write_io_error(sbh);
> - set_buffer_uptodate(sbh);
> - }
> /*
> * If the file system is mounted read-only, don't update the
> * superblock write time. This avoids updating the superblock
> @@ -4371,7 +4357,23 @@ static int ext4_commit_super(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
> &EXT4_SB(sb)->s_freeinodes_counter));
> BUFFER_TRACE(sbh, "marking dirty");
> ext4_superblock_csum_set(sb);
> + lock_buffer(sbh);
> + if (buffer_write_io_error(sbh)) {
> + /*
> + * Oh, dear. A previous attempt to write the
> + * superblock failed. This could happen because the
> + * USB device was yanked out. Or it could happen to
> + * be a transient write error and maybe the block will
> + * be remapped. Nothing we can do but to retry the
> + * write and hope for the best.
> + */
> + ext4_msg(sb, KERN_ERR, "previous I/O error to "
> + "superblock detected");
> + clear_buffer_write_io_error(sbh);
> + set_buffer_uptodate(sbh);
> + }
> mark_buffer_dirty(sbh);
> + unlock_buffer(sbh);
> if (sync) {
> error = __sync_dirty_buffer(sbh,
> test_opt(sb, BARRIER) ? WRITE_FUA : WRITE_SYNC);
> --
> 1.9.1
>
Can this be reviewed as well please.
--
---P.K.S
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-04 16:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rRd2N-6Kd-23@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1434465 |
On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:12:30PM +0300, Pranay Kr. Srivastava wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Pranay Kr. Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com>
The description for why the change is being made should go in the
commit. (No need to put the description in a separate cover letter.)
I ended up rewriting the commit description as follows, to make it
much more understandable:
ext4: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE in ext4_commit_super()
If there are racing calls to ext4_commit_super() it's possible for
another writeback of the superblock to result in the buffer being
marked with an error after we check if the buffer is marked as
having a write error and the buffer up-to-date flag is set again.
If that happens mark_buffer_dirty() can end up throwing a
WARN_ON_ONCE.
Fix this by moving this check to write before we call
write_buffer_dirty(), and keeping the buffer locked during this
whole sequence.
Signed-off-by: Pranay Kr. Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
Note that the one-line summary needs to carry as much information as
possible so someone who is scanning the commits using git log
--oneline has a chance of understanding it. This means the high-level
*why* of the commit, not a summary of what the changes in the C code.
Also note the increased context of when the misbehaviour could occur
in the commit description, which was missing in the cover letter.
When I'm processing patches, if I'm in a hurry, patches that require
extra work or which aren't Obviously Right, sometimes get deferred by
a few days. This patch fell in that category.
Adding to the commit descrtipion additional context and/or
instructions for how to reproduce the problem you are trying to
remediate will often make life much easier for me, and accelerate how
quickly I'll get to your patch.
Cheers,
- Ted
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pranay Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-07-05 05:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <rRpdD-5Oe-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1436549 |
On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 02:12:30PM +0300, Pranay Kr. Srivastava wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Pranay Kr. Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com>
>
> The description for why the change is being made should go in the
> commit. (No need to put the description in a separate cover letter.)
> I ended up rewriting the commit description as follows, to make it
> much more understandable:
>
> ext4: Fix WARN_ON_ONCE in ext4_commit_super()
>
> If there are racing calls to ext4_commit_super() it's possible for
> another writeback of the superblock to result in the buffer being
> marked with an error after we check if the buffer is marked as
> having a write error and the buffer up-to-date flag is set again.
> If that happens mark_buffer_dirty() can end up throwing a
> WARN_ON_ONCE.
>
> Fix this by moving this check to write before we call
> write_buffer_dirty(), and keeping the buffer locked during this
> whole sequence.
>
> Signed-off-by: Pranay Kr. Srivastava <pranjas@gmail.com>
> Signed-off-by: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
>
> Note that the one-line summary needs to carry as much information as
> possible so someone who is scanning the commits using git log
> --oneline has a chance of understanding it. This means the high-level
> *why* of the commit, not a summary of what the changes in the C code.
> Also note the increased context of when the misbehaviour could occur
> in the commit description, which was missing in the cover letter.
>
> When I'm processing patches, if I'm in a hurry, patches that require
> extra work or which aren't Obviously Right, sometimes get deferred by
> a few days. This patch fell in that category.
>
> Adding to the commit descrtipion additional context and/or
> instructions for how to reproduce the problem you are trying to
> remediate will often make life much easier for me, and accelerate how
> quickly I'll get to your patch.
>
> Cheers,
>
> - Ted
Thank you Theodore Sir. Points duly noted, I'll take care from now on
while sending
patches.
--
---P.K.S
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web