commit 5fcd57505c002efc5823a7355e21f48dd02d5a51 upstream.
The only use of I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRE is to detect in
__writeback_single_inode() that inode got there because flush worker
decided it's time to writeback the dirty inode time stamps (either
because we are syncing or because of age). However we can detect this
directly in __writeback_single_inode() and there's no need for the
strange propagation with I_DIRTY_TIME_EXPIRE flag.
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Eric Biggers <ebiggers@kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 5afced3bf28100d81fb2fe7e98918632a08feaf5 upstream.
Inode's i_io_list list head is used to attach inode to several different
lists - wb->{b_dirty, b_dirty_time, b_io, b_more_io}. When flush worker
prepares a list of inodes to writeback e.g. for sync(2), it moves inodes
to b_io list. Thus it is critical for sync(2) data integrity guarantees
that inode is not requeued to any other writeback list when inode is
queued for processing by flush worker. That's the reason why
writeback_single_inode() does not touch i_io_list (unless the inode is
completely clean) and why __mark_inode_dirty() does not touch i_io_list
if I_SYNC flag is set.
However there are two flaws in the current logic:
1) When inode has only I_DIRTY_TIME set but it is already queued in b_io
list due to sync(2), concurrent __mark_inode_dirty(inode, I_DIRTY_SYNC)
can still move inode back to b_dirty list resulting in skipping
writeback of inode time stamps during sync(2).
2) When inode is on b_dirty_time list and writeback_single_inode() races
with __mark_inode_dirty() like:
writeback_single_inode() __mark_inode_dirty(inode, I_DIRTY_PAGES)
inode->i_state |= I_SYNC
__writeback_single_inode()
inode->i_state |= I_DIRTY_PAGES;
if (inode->i_state & I_SYNC)
bail
if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL))
- not true so nothing done
We end up with I_DIRTY_PAGES inode on b_dirty_time list and thus
standard background writeback will not writeback this inode leading to
possible dirty throttling stalls etc. (thanks to Martijn Coenen for this
analysis).
Fix these problems by tracking whether inode is queued in b_io or
b_more_io lists in a new I_SYNC_QUEUED flag. When this flag is set, we
know flush worker has queued inode and we should not touch i_io_list.
On the other hand we also know that once flush worker is done with the
inode it will requeue the inode to appropriate dirty list. When
I_SYNC_QUEUED is not set, __mark_inode_dirty() can (and must) move inode
to appropriate dirty list.
Reported-by: Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Reviewed-by: Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Tested-by: Martijn Coenen <maco@android.com>
Reviewed-by: Christoph Hellwig <hch@lst.de>
Fixes: 0ae45f63d4ef ("vfs: add support for a lazytime mount option")
CC: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
commit 9d82973e032e246ff5663c9805fbb5407ae932e3 upstream.
Due to a bug-report that was compiler-dependent, I updated one of my
machines to gcc-10. That shows a lot of new warnings. Happily they
seem to be mostly the valid kind, but it's going to cause a round of
churn for getting rid of them..
This is the really low-hanging fruit of removing a couple of zero-sized
arrays in some core code. We have had a round of these patches before,
and we'll have many more coming, and there is nothing special about
these except that they were particularly trivial, and triggered more
warnings than most.
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Jan Kara