[PATCH] xfs_repair: fix prefetch queue waiting

[Brian Foster]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2014 at 10:27:28PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> This fixes a regression caused by:
> 
> 97b1fcf xfs_repair: fix array overrun in do_inode_prefetch
> 
> The thread creation loop has 2 ways to exit; either via
> the loop counter based on thread_count, or the break statement
> if we've started enough workers to cover all AGs.
> 
> Whether or not the loop counter "i" reflects the number of
> threads started depends on whether or not we exited via the
> break.
> 
> The above commit prevented us from indexing off the end
> of the queues[] array if we actually advanced "i" all the
> way to thread_count, but in the case where we break, "i"
> is one *less* than the nr of threads started, so we don't
> wait for completion of all threads, and all hell breaks
> loose in phase 5.
> 
> Just stop with the cleverness of re-using the loop counter -
> instead, explicitly count threads that we start, and then use
> that counter to wait for each worker to complete.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen at redhat.com>
> ---
> 
> I have one fs which demonstrates the problem, and have verified
> the regression & tested the fix against that.
> 
> I'll run this over xfstests overnight, but it seems obvious
> from here (OTOH the other fix seemed obvious too) :(
> 
> diff --git a/repair/prefetch.c b/repair/prefetch.c
> index e47a48e..4c32395 100644
> --- a/repair/prefetch.c
> +++ b/repair/prefetch.c
> @@ -944,6 +944,7 @@ do_inode_prefetch(
>  	int			i;
>  	struct work_queue	queue;
>  	struct work_queue	*queues;
> +	int			queues_started = 0;
>  
>  	/*
>  	 * If the previous phases of repair have not overflowed the buffer
> @@ -987,6 +988,7 @@ do_inode_prefetch(
>  
>  		create_work_queue(&queues[i], mp, 1);
>  		queue_work(&queues[i], prefetch_ag_range_work, 0, wargs);
> +		queues_started++;
>  
>  		if (wargs->end_ag >= mp->m_sb.sb_agcount)
>  			break;
> @@ -995,7 +997,7 @@ do_inode_prefetch(
>  	/*
>  	 * wait for workers to complete
>  	 */
> -	while (i--)
> +	for (i = 0; i < queues_started; i++)
>  		destroy_work_queue(&queues[i]);

Fix looks good, but any reason to reverse the order of the destroy loop?

Brian

>  	free(queues);
>  }
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs at oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs