lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [May]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patches in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: BUG: Failure to send REQ_FLUSH on unmount on ext3, ext4, and FS in general
Christoph,

--On 23 May 2011 13:52:04 -0400 Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> wrote:

> On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 06:39:23PM +0100, Alex Bligh wrote:
>> I'm presuming that if just umount() were altered to do a REQ_FLUSH,
>> the potential presence of 2 sync()s would not be too offensive, as
>> unmount isn't exactly time critical, and as Christoph pointed out in
>> the other thread, a REQ_FLUSH when the write cache has recently been
>> emptied isn't going to take long.
>
> Umount actually is the only place where adding it generically makes
> sense. It's not time-critical, and with kill_block_super we actually
> have a block specific place to put it, instead of having to hack
> it into the generic VFS, which is something we've been trying to avoid.

You mean like this (completely untested)?

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 8a06881..a86201a 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -852,6 +852,7 @@ void kill_block_super(struct super_block *sb)
bdev->bd_super = NULL;
generic_shutdown_super(sb);
sync_blockdev(bdev);
+ blkdev_issue_flush(bdev, GFP_KERNEL, NULL);
WARN_ON_ONCE(!(mode & FMODE_EXCL));
blkdev_put(bdev, mode | FMODE_EXCL);
}

One thing I am puzzled by is that blkdev_fsync unconditionally
calls blkdev_issue_flush, but no amount of fsync(), sync() or
whatever generates any REQ_FLUSH traffic. The only explanation
I can guess at for that is that blkdev_issue_flush is a NOOP
if the driver doesn't have a make_request_function:

/*
* some block devices may not have their queue correctly set up here
* (e.g. loop device without a backing file) and so issuing a flush
* here will panic. Ensure there is a request function before
issuing
* the flush.
*/
if (!q->make_request_fn)
return -ENXIO;
According to Documentation/block/writeback_cache_control.txt, drivers
with a request_fn are still meant to get REQ_FLUSH etc. provided
they have done:

blk_queue_flush(sdkp->disk->queue, REQ_FLUSH);

So should that read (again untested) as follows:

diff --git a/block/blk-flush.c b/block/blk-flush.c
index 6c9b5e1..3a6d4bd 100644
--- a/block/blk-flush.c
+++ b/block/blk-flush.c
@@ -408,7 +408,8 @@ int blkdev_issue_flush(struct block_device *bdev, gfp_t
gfp_mask,
* here will panic. Ensure there is a request function before
issuing
* the flush.
*/
- if (!q->make_request_fn)
+ if (!q->make_request_fn &&
+ !(q->request_fn && (q->flush_flags & REQ_FLUSH)))
return -ENXIO;

bio = bio_alloc(gfp_mask, 0);

>> Ah, fsdevel not here. OK. Partly I'd like to understand whether
>> sync() not flushing write caches on barrier-less file systems
>> is a good thing or a bad thing. I know barriers are better, but if
>> writing to (e.g.) FAT32, I'm betting there is little prospect of
>> barrier support.
>
> "Barrier" support it's gone. It's really just the FUA and FLUSH
> flags these days.

Sorry - slack terminology on my part.

--
Alex Bligh


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-05-23 20:53    [W:0.038 / U:4.752 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site