If journal superblock is written only in disk's caches and other transaction
starts reusing space of the transaction cleaned from the log, it can happen
blocks of a new transaction reach the disk before journal superblock. When
power failure happens in such case, subsequent journal replay would still try
to replay the old transaction but some of it's blocks may be already
overwritten by the new transaction. For this reason we must use WRITE_FUA when
updating log tail and we must first write new log tail to disk and update
in-memory information only after that.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

There are some log tail updates that are not protected by j_checkpoint_mutex.
Some of these are harmless because they happen during startup or shutdown but
updates in journal_commit_transaction() and journal_flush() can really race
with other log tail updates (e.g. someone doing journal_flush() with someone
running cleanup_journal_tail()). So protect all log tail updates with
j_checkpoint_mutex.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

There are three case of updating journal superblock. In the first case, we want
to mark journal as empty (setting s_sequence to 0), in the second case we want
to update log tail, in the third case we want to update s_errno. Split these
cases into separate functions. It makes the code slightly more straightforward
and later patches will make the distinction even more important.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Currently we write out all journal buffers in WRITE_SYNC mode. This improves
performance for fsync heavy workloads but hinders performance when writes
are mostly asynchronous, most noticably it slows down readers and users
complain about slow desktop response etc.

So submit writes as asynchronous in the normal case and only submit writes as
WRITE_SYNC if we detect someone is waiting for current transaction commit.

I've gathered some numbers to back this change. The first is the read latency
test. It measures time to read 1 MB after several seconds of sleeping in
presence of streaming writes.

Top 10 times (out of 90) in us:
Before		After
2131586		697473
1709932		557487
1564598		535642
1480462		347573
1478579		323153
1408496		222181
1388960		181273
1329565		181070
1252486		172832
1223265		172278

Average:
619377		82180

So the improvement in both maximum and average latency is massive.

I've measured fsync throughput by:
fs_mark -n 100 -t 1 -s 16384 -d /mnt/fsync/ -S 1 -L 4

in presence of streaming reader. The numbers (fsyncs/s) are:
Before		After
9.9		6.3
6.8		6.0
6.3		6.2
5.8		6.1

So fsync performance seems unharmed by this change.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Currently, we clear revoked flag only when a block is reused.  However,
this can tigger a false journal error.  Consider a situation when a block
is used as a meta block and is deleted(revoked) in ordered mode, then the
block is allocated as a data block to a file.  At this moment, user changes
the file's journal mode from ordered to journaled and truncates the file.
The block will be considered re-revoked by journal because it has revoked
flag still pending from the last transaction and an assertion triggers.

We fix the problem by keeping the revoked status more uptodate - we clear
revoked flag when switching revoke tables to reflect there is no revoked
buffers in current transaction any more.

Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

journal_remove_journal_head() can oops when trying to access journal_head
returned by bh2jh(). This is caused for example by the following race:

	TASK1					TASK2
  journal_commit_transaction()
    ...
    processing t_forget list
      __journal_refile_buffer(jh);
      if (!jh->b_transaction) {
        jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
					journal_try_to_free_buffers()
					  journal_grab_journal_head(bh)
					  jbd_lock_bh_state(bh)
					  __journal_try_to_free_buffer()
					  journal_put_journal_head(jh)
        journal_remove_journal_head(bh);

journal_put_journal_head() in TASK2 sees that b_jcount == 0 and buffer is not
part of any transaction and thus frees journal_head before TASK1 gets to doing
so. Note that even buffer_head can be released by try_to_free_buffers() after
journal_put_journal_head() which adds even larger opportunity for oops (but I
didn't see this happen in reality).

Fix the problem by making transactions hold their own journal_head reference
(in b_jcount). That way we don't have to remove journal_head explicitely via
journal_remove_journal_head() and instead just remove journal_head when
b_jcount drops to zero. The result of this is that [__]journal_refile_buffer(),
[__]journal_unfile_buffer(), and __journal_remove_checkpoint() can free
journal_head which needs modification of a few callers. Also we have to be
careful because once journal_head is removed, buffer_head might be freed as
well. So we have to get our own buffer_head reference where it matters.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

This commit adds fixed tracepoint for jbd. It has been based on fixed
tracepoints for jbd2, however there are missing those for collecting
statistics, since I think that it will require more intrusive patch so I
should have its own commit, if someone decide that it is needed. Also
there are new tracepoints in __journal_drop_transaction() and
journal_update_superblock().

The list of jbd tracepoints:

jbd_checkpoint
jbd_start_commit
jbd_commit_locking
jbd_commit_flushing
jbd_commit_logging
jbd_drop_transaction
jbd_end_commit
jbd_do_submit_data
jbd_cleanup_journal_tail
jbd_update_superblock_end

Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

summarise_journal_usage seems to be obsolete for a long time,
so remove it.

Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Signed-off-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

In do_get_write_access() we wait on BH_Unshadow bit for buffer to get
from shadow state. The waking code in journal_commit_transaction() has
a bug because it does not issue a memory barrier after the buffer is moved
from the shadow state and before wake_up_bit() is called. Thus a waitqueue
check can happen before the buffer is actually moved from the shadow state
and waiting process may never be woken. Fix the problem by issuing proper
barrier.

CC: stable@kernel.org
Reported-by: Tao Ma <boyu.mt@taobao.com>
Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>

Fixes generated by 'codespell' and manually reviewed.

Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@profusion.mobi>