On Feb 24, 2017, at 11:59 AM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote: > On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 04:47:14PM -0500, James Simmons wrote: >> From: Alex Zhuravlev <alexey.zhurav...@intel.com> >> >> on small filesystems plain log can grow dramatically. especially >> given large record sizes produced by DNE and extended chunksize. >> I saw >50% of space consumed by a single llog file which was still >> in use. this leads to test failures (sanityn, etc). >> the patch introduces additional limit on plain llog size, which >> is calculated as <free space>/64 (128MB at most) at llog creation >> time. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alex Zhuravlev <alexey.zhurav...@intel.com> >> Intel-bug-id: https://jira.hpdd.intel.com/browse/LU-6838 >> Reviewed-on: https://review.whamcloud.com/18028 >> Reviewed-by: Andreas Dilger <andreas.dil...@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: wangdi <di.w...@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Mike Pershin <mike.pers...@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Oleg Drokin <oleg.dro...@intel.com> >> Signed-off-by: James Simmons <jsimm...@infradead.org> >> --- >> drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++ >> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c >> b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c >> index 83c5b62..320ff6b 100644 >> --- a/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c >> +++ b/drivers/staging/lustre/lustre/obdclass/llog.c >> @@ -319,10 +319,26 @@ static int llog_process_thread(void *arg) >> * the case and re-read the current chunk >> * otherwise. >> */ >> + int records; >> + >> if (index > loghandle->lgh_last_idx) { >> rc = 0; >> goto out; >> } >> + /* <2 records means no more records >> + * if the last record we processed was >> + * the final one, then the underlying >> + * object might have been destroyed yet. >> + * we better don't access that.. >> + */ >> + mutex_lock(&loghandle->lgh_hdr_mutex); >> + records = loghandle->lgh_hdr->llh_count; >> + mutex_unlock(&loghandle->lgh_hdr_mutex); >> + if (records <= 1) { >> + rc = 0; >> + goto out; >> + } > > > So you now use the lock, in only one place, when reading a single value? > That makes no sense, it's obviously wrong, or not needed. > > Please fix up these two patches…
Ah, this is in fact server-side fix, so all the other users were in the parts not really present in the client. James, we don't really need this patch in the client, I guess.
