linux.git/fs/jbd/commit.c, branch v2.6.24

jbd: Fix assertion failure in fs/jbd/checkpoint.c

2007-12-05T17:21:20+00:00

Before we start committing a transaction, we call
__journal_clean_checkpoint_list() to cleanup transaction's written-back
buffers.

If this call happens to remove all of them (and there were already some
buffers), __journal_remove_checkpoint() will decide to free the transaction
because it isn't (yet) a committing transaction and soon we fail some
assertion - the transaction really isn't ready to be freed :).

We change the check in __journal_remove_checkpoint() to free only a
transaction in T_FINISHED state.  The locking there is subtle though (as
everywhere in JBD ;().  We use j_list_lock to protect the check and a
subsequent call to __journal_drop_transaction() and do the same in the end
of journal_commit_transaction() which is the only place where a transaction
can get to T_FINISHED state.

Probably I'm too paranoid here and such locking is not really necessary -
checkpoint lists are processed only from log_do_checkpoint() where a
transaction must be already committed to be processed or from
__journal_clean_checkpoint_list() where kjournald itself calls it and thus
transaction cannot change state either.  Better be safe if something
changes in future...

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Cc: 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

jbd: fix commit code to properly abort journal

2007-10-19T18:53:35+00:00

We should really call journal_abort() and not __journal_abort_hard() in
case of errors.  The latter call does not record the error in the journal
superblock and thus filesystem won't be marked as with errors later (and
user could happily mount it without any warning).

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Cc: 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

JBD: JBD slab allocation cleanups

2007-10-17T22:49:56+00:00

JBD: Replace slab allocations with page allocations

JBD allocate memory for committed_data and frozen_data from slab. However
JBD should not pass slab pages down to the block layer. Use page allocator pages instead. This will also prepare JBD for the large blocksize patchset.

Signed-off-by: Christoph Lameter 
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao

jbd commit: fix transaction dropping

2007-07-16T16:05:34+00:00

We have to check that also the second checkpoint list is non-empty before
dropping the transaction.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Cc: Chuck Ebbert 
Cc: Kirill Korotaev 
Cc: 
Cc: 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

header cleaning: don't include smp_lock.h when not used

2007-05-08T18:15:07+00:00

Remove includes of  where it is not used/needed.
Suggested by Al Viro.

Builds cleanly on x86_64, i386, alpha, ia64, powerpc, sparc,
sparc64, and arm (all 59 defconfigs).

Signed-off-by: Randy Dunlap 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] jbd: wait for already submitted t_sync_datalist buffer to complete

2006-12-22T16:55:51+00:00

In the current jbd code, if a buffer on BJ_SyncData list is dirty and not
locked, the buffer is refiled to BJ_Locked list, submitted to the IO and
waited for IO completion.

But the fsstress test showed the case that when a buffer was already
submitted to the IO just before the buffer_dirty(bh) check, the buffer was
not waited for IO completion.

Following patch solves this problem.  If it is assumed that a buffer is
submitted to the IO before the buffer_dirty(bh) check and still being
written to disk, this buffer is refiled to BJ_Locked list.

Signed-off-by: Hisashi Hifumi 
Cc: Jan Kara 
Cc: "Stephen C. Tweedie" 
Cc: 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

fix file specification in comments

2006-10-03T21:01:26+00:00

Many files include the filename at the beginning, serveral used a wrong one.

Signed-off-by: Uwe Zeisberger 
Signed-off-by: Adrian Bunk

[PATCH] jbd: fix commit of ordered data buffers

2006-09-26T15:48:44+00:00

Original commit code assumes, that when a buffer on BJ_SyncData list is
locked, it is being written to disk.  But this is not true and hence it can
lead to a potential data loss on crash.  Also the code didn't count with
the fact that journal_dirty_data() can steal buffers from committing
transaction and hence could write buffers that no longer belong to the
committing transaction.  Finally it could possibly happen that we tried
writing out one buffer several times.

The patch below tries to solve these problems by a complete rewrite of the
data commit code.  We go through buffers on t_sync_datalist, lock buffers
needing write out and store them in an array.  Buffers are also immediately
refiled to BJ_Locked list or unfiled (if the write out is completed).  When
the array is full or we have to block on buffer lock, we submit all
accumulated buffers for IO.

[suitable for 2.6.18.x around the 2.6.19-rc2 timeframe]

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Cc: Badari Pulavarty 
Cc: 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] Manage jbd allocations from its own slabs

2006-08-27T18:01:32+00:00

JBD currently allocates commit and frozen buffers from slabs.  With
CONFIG_SLAB_DEBUG, its possible for an allocation to cross the page
boundary causing IO problems.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=200127

So, instead of allocating these from regular slabs - manage allocation from
its own slabs and disable slab debug for these slabs.

[akpm@osdl.org: cleanups]
Signed-off-by: Badari Pulavarty 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds

[PATCH] jbd: fix BUG in journal_commit_transaction()

2006-06-23T14:43:04+00:00

Fix possible assertion failure in journal_commit_transaction() on
jh->b_next_transaction == NULL (when we are processing BJ_Forget list and
buffer is not jbddirty).

!jbddirty buffers can be placed on BJ_Forget list for example by
journal_forget() or by __dispose_buffer() - generally such buffer means
that it has been freed by this transaction.

Freed buffers should not be reallocated until the transaction has committed
(that's why we have the assertion there) but they *can* be reallocated when
the transaction has already been committed to disk and we are just
processing the BJ_Forget list (as soon as we remove b_committed_data from
the bitmap bh, ext3 will be able to reallocate buffers freed by the
committing transaction).  So we have to also count with the case that the
buffer has been reallocated and b_next_transaction has been already set.

And one more subtle point: it can happen that we manage to reallocate the
buffer and also mark it jbddirty.  Then we also add the freed buffer to the
checkpoint list of the committing trasaction.  But that should do no harm.

Non-jbddirty buffers should be filed to BJ_Reserved and not BJ_Metadata
list.  It can actually happen that we refile such buffers during the commit
phase when we reallocate in the running transaction blocks deleted in
committing transaction (and that can happen if the committing transaction
already wrote all the data and is just cleaning up BJ_Forget list).

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Acked-by: "Stephen C. Tweedie" 
Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton 
Signed-off-by: Linus Torvalds