On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 01:42:47PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> David Chinner wrote:
> >On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 03:24:57PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
> >>An xfs inode can be destroyed before log I/O involving that inode
> >>is complete. We need to wait for the inode to be unpinned before
> >>tearing it down.
.....
> >>--- fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c_1.757 2008-05-12 12:02:45.000000000 +1000
> >>+++ fs/xfs/xfs_vnodeops.c 2008-05-12 12:28:15.000000000 +1000
> >>@@ -3324,6 +3324,7 @@ xfs_finish_reclaim(
> >> * because we're gonna reclaim the inode anyway.
> >> */
> >> if (error) {
> >>+ xfs_iunpin_wait(ip);
> >> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
> >> goto reclaim;
> >> }
> >
> >We can't get an error from xfs_iflush() from here that hasn't
> >already passed through xfs_iunpin_wait() in xfs_iflush().
> >Hence we should never see a pinned inode through this path.
>
> Okay, good point. I'll remove that one. I thought about removing
> the XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN() and dirty inode checks from xfs_finish_reclaim()
> and calling xfs_iflush() anyway. It will abort if it's a clean inode
> or it will do the unpin and then abort if it's a forced shutdown.
> It would make the code in xfs_finish_reclaim() a bit cleaner. I also
> wouldn't need to export xfs_iunpin_wait(). Thoughts?
Sounds like a fine plan. Please comment it appropriately, though.
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
Principal Engineer
SGI Australian Software Group
|