Re: Linux 2.4.30-rc3 md/ext3 problems (ext3 gurus : please check)

2005-04-06 Thread Hifumi Hisashi
Hi,
At 23:20 05/04/06, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>Yes.  But it is conventional to interpret a short write as being a
>failure.  Returning less bytes than were requested in the write
>indicates that the rest failed.  It just doesn't give the exact nature
>of the failure (EIO vs ENOSPC etc.)  For regular files, a short write is
>never permitted unless there are errors of some description.
When commit_write() FULLY succeed (requested bytes == returned bytes) but
generic_osync_inode() return error due to I/O failure, current 
do_generic_file_write() cannot
return error. I encountered above situation a lot under an I/O trouble 
condition .

In ver 2.6.11, the return value of generic_osync_inode() is returned 
directry to user
when I/O failure occur.

thanks.
  

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


Re: Linux 2.4.30-rc3 md/ext3 problems (ext3 gurus : please check)

2005-04-06 Thread Hifumi Hisashi
Hi.
At 07:40 05/04/06, Stephen C. Tweedie wrote:
>Sorry, was offline for a week last week; I'll try to look at this more
>closely tomorrow.  Checking the buffer_uptodate() without either a
>refcount or a lock certainly looks unsafe at first glance.
>
>There are lots of ways to pin the bh in that particular bit of the
>code.  The important thing will be to do so without causing leaks if
>we're truly finished with the buffer after this flush.
>
I have measured the bh refcount before the buffer_uptodate() for a few days.
I found out that the bh refcount sometimes reached to 0 .
So, I think following modifications are effective.
diff -Nru 2.4.30-rc3/fs/jbd/commit.c 2.4.30-rc3_patch/fs/jbd/commit.c
--- 2.4.30-rc3/fs/jbd/commit.c  2005-04-06 17:14:47.0 +0900
+++ 2.4.30-rc3_patch/fs/jbd/commit.c2005-04-06 17:18:49.0 +0900
@@ -295,6 +295,7 @@
struct buffer_head *bh;
jh = jh->b_tprev;/* Wait on the last written */
bh = jh2bh(jh);
+   get_bh(bh);
if (buffer_locked(bh)) {
spin_unlock(&journal_datalist_lock);
unlock_journal(journal);
@@ -302,11 +303,14 @@
if (unlikely(!buffer_uptodate(bh)))
err = -EIO;
/* the journal_head may have been removed now */
+   put_bh(bh);
lock_journal(journal);
goto write_out_data;
} else if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
+   put_bh(bh);
goto write_out_data_locked;
}
+   put_bh(bh);
} while (jh != commit_transaction->t_sync_datalist);
goto write_out_data_locked;

>
>> > If some of the write succeeded and some failed, then I believe the
>> > correct behaviour is to return the number of bytes that succeeded.
>> > However this change to the return status (remember the above patch is
>> > a reversal) causes any failure to over-ride any success. This, I
>> > think, is wrong.
>>
>> Yeap, that part also looks wrong.
>
>Certainly it's normal for a short read/write to imply either error or
>EOF, without the error necessarily needing to be returned explicitly.
>I'm not convinced that the Singleunix language actually requires that,
>but it seems the most obvious and consistent behaviour.
>
>--Stephen
When an O_SYNC flag is set , if commit_write() succeed but 
generic_osync_inode() return
error due to I/O failure, write() must fail .

I think that following error handling code is rational in 
do_generic_file_write() .

if (file->f_flags & O_SYNC)
err = (status < 0) ? status : written;
else
err = written ? written : status;
out:
return err;
Thanks. 

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/