On 2018/07/27 15:09, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > On 2018年07月27日 09:43, Misono Tomohiro wrote: >> On 2018/07/27 10:19, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 2018年07月27日 09:10, Misono Tomohiro wrote: >>>> On 2018/07/26 18:15, Qu Wenruo wrote: >>>>> Between btrfs_quota_enable() finished and rescan kicked in, there is a >>>>> small window that quota status has (ON | INCONSISTENT) bits set but >>>>> without RESCAN bits set. >>>>> >>>>> And transaction is committed inside the window and then power loss >>>>> happens, we will have a quota tree with all qgroup numbers set to 0, and >>>>> not RESCAN bit set. >>>>> >>>>> At next mount time, qgroup rescan will not kick in due to the missing of >>>>> RESCAN bit, user needs to kick in rescan manually. >>>>> >>>>> This patch will fix it by setting RESCAN bit at btrfs_quota_enable(), >>>>> so even after power loss we will still kick in rescan automatically. >>>>> >>>>> Suggested-by: Misono Tomohiro <misono.tomoh...@jp.fujitsu.com> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <w...@suse.com> >>>>> --- >>>>> fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 5 +++-- >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c >>>>> index c25dc47210a3..13c1c7dd278d 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c >>>>> @@ -930,7 +930,8 @@ int btrfs_quota_enable(struct btrfs_trans_handle >>>>> *trans, >>>>> btrfs_set_qgroup_status_generation(leaf, ptr, trans->transid); >>>>> btrfs_set_qgroup_status_version(leaf, ptr, BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_VERSION); >>>>> fs_info->qgroup_flags = BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_ON | >>>>> - BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_INCONSISTENT; >>>>> + BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_INCONSISTENT | >>>>> + BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_RESCAN; >>>>> btrfs_set_qgroup_status_flags(leaf, ptr, fs_info->qgroup_flags); >>>>> btrfs_set_qgroup_status_rescan(leaf, ptr, 0); >>>>> >>>>> @@ -987,7 +988,7 @@ int btrfs_quota_enable(struct btrfs_trans_handle >>>>> *trans, >>>>> fs_info->quota_root = quota_root; >>>>> set_bit(BTRFS_FS_QUOTA_ENABLED, &fs_info->flags); >>>>> spin_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_lock); >>>>> - ret = qgroup_rescan_init(fs_info, 0, 1); >>>>> + ret = qgroup_rescan_init(fs_info, 0, 0); >>>>> if (!ret) { >>>>> qgroup_rescan_zero_tracking(fs_info); >>>>> btrfs_queue_work(fs_info->qgroup_rescan_workers, >>>>> >>>> >>>> This is what I think at first, but is it ok not holding >>>> fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock >>>> in brfs_qgroup_rescan() as you concerned in previous thread? >>> >>> I think it's OK, since we have larger mutex (subvol_sem) for >>> quota_enable/disable() so there will be no concurrency modifying flags. >>> And we're holding trans handler from btrfs_ioctl_quota_ctl(), >>> transaction won't be committed in btrfs_quota_enable(). >> >> Ok, but nikolay's patch in misc-next moves transaction commit in >> btrfs_quota_enable(): >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10508819/ >> ("btrfs: qgroups: Move transaction management inside >> btrfs_quota_enable/disable") > > Since qgroup_rescan_init() has nothing do to with transaction, it looks > OK even with Nikolay's patch. >
Understood. Thanks for your explanation. Misono >> >> This is related to https://marc.info/?l=linux-btrfs&m=152999289017582. >> However, it seems that other people does not see the problem, >> so I'm not sure how the above patch ends up... > > IIRC I also failed to reproduce it, thus can't provide much help for > that thread. > > Thanks, > Qu > > > >> >> Thanks, >> Tomohiro Misono >> >>> >>> So I think it's OK. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Qu >>> >>> >> > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html