Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] dlmfs: add a newline when printing 'capabilities' by sysfs

Hi， I am afraid that doing so might introduce a compatible risk into exited systems which reply ocfs2/dlmfs. We can't guarantee that no system management tools is using the information reported from this file. Basically, ocfs2-tools works of top of it. But after a quick glance at the

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] (RESEND) [PATCH] ocfs2: Fix error handling in ocfs2_setattr()

h Qi Also looks sane to me Reviewed-by: Changwei Ge >> --- >> fs/ocfs2/file.c | 2 ++ >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/file.c b/fs/ocfs2/file.c >> index 2e982db3e1ae..53939bf9d7d2 100644 >> --- a/fs/ocfs2/file.c >>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3 v2] fs: ocfs2: Fix possible null-pointer dereferences in ocfs2_xa_prepare_entry()

Hi Jia-Ju, Please checkout my comments inline. On 2019/7/27 8:49 上午, Joseph Qi wrote: On 19/7/26 18:14, Jia-Ju Bai wrote: In ocfs2_xa_prepare_entry(), there is an if statement on line 2136 to check whether loc->xl_entry is NULL: if (loc->xl_entry) When loc->xl_entry is NULL, it is

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] fs: ocfs2: Fix a possible null-pointer dereference in ocfs2_write_end_nolock()

Hi Jia-ju, Could you please point out how ->w_handle can be NULL if we are changing disk inode? I just checked the ocfs2 code but can't find any clue ... In my opinion, it's impossible to change disk inode without an existed journal transaction. If truly so, it's a another problem.

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix the application IO timeout when fstrim is running

Hi Gang, It looks good to me. On 2019/1/15 16:23, Gang He wrote: > Hello ChangWei, > >>>> On 2019/1/15 at 16:00, in message > <63adc13fd55d6546b7dece290d39e3730127826...@h3cmlb12-ex.srv.huawei-3com.com>, > Changwei Ge wrote: >> On 2019/1/15 13:49

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix the application IO timeout when fstrim is running

On 2019/1/15 13:49, Gang He wrote: > Hello Changewei, > >>>> On 2019/1/15 at 11:50, in message > <63adc13fd55d6546b7dece290d39e3730127825...@h3cmlb12-ex.srv.huawei-3com.com>, > Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi Gang, >> >> Most parts of this patch look san

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix the application IO timeout when fstrim is running

Hi Gang, Most parts of this patch look sane to me, just a tiny question... On 2019/1/11 17:01, Gang He wrote: > The user reported this problem, the upper application IO was > timeout when fstrim was running on this ocfs2 partition. the > application monitoring resource agent considered that this

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: fix the application IO timeout when fstrim is running

Hi Gang, On 2019/1/11 17:01, Gang He wrote: > The user reported this problem, the upper application IO was > timeout when fstrim was running on this ocfs2 partition. the > application monitoring resource agent considered that this > application did not work, then this node was fenced by the

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH V2] ocfs2: fix dead lock caused by ocfs2_defrag_extent

1RI=PQOJREyeElsg_1IlINdSGefNqA6w_cUrI1ezdVxyi7o= > Signed-off-by: Larry Chen > Cc: Mark Fasheh > Cc: Joel Becker > Cc: Junxiao Bi > Cc: Joseph Qi > Cc: Changwei Ge > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton > --- > > fs/ocfs2/move_extents.c | 40

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH V2] ocfs2: fix dead lock caused by ocfs2_defrag_extent

1RI=PQOJREyeElsg_1IlINdSGefNqA6w_cUrI1ezdVxyi7o= > Signed-off-by: Larry Chen > Cc: Mark Fasheh > Cc: Joel Becker > Cc: Junxiao Bi > Cc: Joseph Qi > Cc: Changwei Ge > Signed-off-by: Andrew Morton > --- > > fs/ocfs2/move_extents.c | 40

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Jun, On 2018/3/2 10:16, piaojun wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi Jun, >> I think the comments for both two functions are OK. >> No need to rework them. >> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several par

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Jun, On 2018/3/2 10:16, piaojun wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > On 2018/3/2 9:59, Changwei Ge wrote: >> Hi Jun, >> I think the comments for both two functions are OK. >> No need to rework them. >> As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several par

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Jun, I think the comments for both two functions are OK. No need to rework them. As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including block number. Thanks, Changw2ei On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote: > Hi Larry, > > There is the same mistake in

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Jun, I think the comments for both two functions are OK. No need to rework them. As we know, ocfs2 lock name(lock id) are composed of several parts including block number. Thanks, Changw2ei On 2018/3/1 20:58, piaojun wrote: > Hi Larry, > > There is the same mistake in

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Larry, On 2018/2/28 18:18, Larry Chen wrote: > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower > blockid first, not lockid. As ocfs2's lock name includes block number, so I think the comment you want to rework is all right. So nack. Thanks, Changwei > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] Correct a comment error

Hi Larry, On 2018/2/28 18:18, Larry Chen wrote: > The function ocfs2_double_lock tries to lock the inode with lower > blockid first, not lockid. As ocfs2's lock name includes block number, so I think the comment you want to rework is all right. So nack. Thanks, Changwei > > Signed-off-by:

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

It looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Changwei Ge <ge.chang...@h3c.com> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk > cluster file system, if the user configures a s

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

It looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Changwei Ge On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk > cluster file system, if the user configures a scheduled fstrim > job

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] ocfs2: add trimfs dlm lock resource

It looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Changwei Ge <ge.chang...@h3c.com> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > Introduce a new dlm lock resource, which will be used to > communicate during fstrim a ocfs2 device from cluster nodes. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He <g...@suse.co

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] ocfs2: add trimfs dlm lock resource

It looks good to me. Reviewed-by: Changwei Ge On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > Introduce a new dlm lock resource, which will be used to > communicate during fstrim a ocfs2 device from cluster nodes. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/d

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 15:57, Gang He wrote: > > > >> On 2018/1/11 15:19, Gang He wrote: >>> >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11 12:31, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 15:57, Gang He wrote: > > > >> On 2018/1/11 15:19, Gang He wrote: >>> >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11 12:31, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 15:19, Gang He wrote: > > > >> On 2018/1/11 12:31, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 15:19, Gang He wrote: > > > >> On 2018/1/11 12:31, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 12:31, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 12:31, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 11:33, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> Hi Gang, >> >> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: >>> As you know,

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/11 10:07, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> Hi Gang, >> >> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: >>> As you know,

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there is a

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there is a

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

Hi Gang, On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

Hi Gang, On 2018/1/10 18:14, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: >>> Hi Changwei, >>> >>> >> Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/4 10:09, Gang He wrote: > Hi Alex, > > >> Hi Gang, >> >> On 2017/12/14 13:14, Gang He wrote: >>> As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via >>> fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk >>> cluster file system, if the user configures a

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/4 10:09, Gang He wrote: > Hi Alex, > > >> Hi Gang, >> >> On 2017/12/14 13:14, Gang He wrote: >>> As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via >>> fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk >>> cluster file system, if the user configures a

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> Hi Gang, >> >> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: >>> As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via >>> fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk >>> cluster file system, if the user configures a

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

On 2018/1/10 17:05, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> Hi Gang, >> >> On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: >>> As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via >>> fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk >>> cluster file system, if the user configures a

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] ocfs2: add trimfs dlm lock resource

Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > Introduce a new dlm lock resource, which will be used to > communicate during fstrim a ocfs2 device from cluster nodes. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 86 >

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/2] ocfs2: add trimfs dlm lock resource

Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > Introduce a new dlm lock resource, which will be used to > communicate during fstrim a ocfs2 device from cluster nodes. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 86 > + >

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk > cluster file system, if the user configures a scheduled fstrim > job on each file system node, this will trigger multiple

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] ocfs2: add trimfs lock to avoid duplicated trims in cluster

Hi Gang, On 2017/12/14 13:16, Gang He wrote: > As you know, ocfs2 has support trim the underlying disk via > fstrim command. But there is a problem, ocfs2 is a shared disk > cluster file system, if the user configures a scheduled fstrim > job on each file system node, this will trigger multiple

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2] ocfs2: try a blocking lock before return AOP_TRUNCATED_PAGE

8 97224 S 0.333 6.017 0:01.33 corosync > > ocfs2test@tb-node2:~>multiple_run.sh -i ens3 -k ~/linux-4.4.21-69.tar.gz -o > ~/ocfs2mullog -C hacluster -s pcmk -n tb-node2,tb-node1,tb-node3 -d > /dev/sda1 -b 4096 -c 32768 -t multi_mmap /mnt/shared > Tests with "-b 4096 -C 32768&

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2] ocfs2: try a blocking lock before return AOP_TRUNCATED_PAGE

8 97224 S 0.333 6.017 0:01.33 corosync > > ocfs2test@tb-node2:~>multiple_run.sh -i ens3 -k ~/linux-4.4.21-69.tar.gz -o > ~/ocfs2mullog -C hacluster -s pcmk -n tb-node2,tb-node1,tb-node3 -d > /dev/sda1 -b 4096 -c 32768 -t multi_mmap /mnt/shared > Tests with "-b 4096

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: try a blocking lock before return AOP_TRUNCATED_PAGE

; RBP: 0003 R08: 000e R09: > R10: 0483 R11: 7fa75ded61b0 R12: 7fa75e90a770 > R13: 000e R14: 1770 R15: 0000 > > Fixes: 1cce4df04f37 ("ocfs2: do not lock/unlock() inode DLM lock&qu

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH] ocfs2: try a blocking lock before return AOP_TRUNCATED_PAGE

; RBP: 0003 R08: 000e R09: > R10: 0483 R11: 7fa75ded61b0 R12: 7fa75e90a770 > R13: 000e R14: 00001770 R15: > > Fixes: 1cce4df04f37 ("ocfs2: do not lock/unlock() inode DLM l

Re: [PATCH 4.4 13/16] ocfs2: should wait dio before inode lock in ocfs2_setattr()

On 2017/12/8 14:21, alex chen wrote: > > > On 2017/12/8 13:36, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:03 +0800, alex chen wrote: >>> >>> On 2017/12/8 10:26, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 08:39 +0800, alex chen wrote: > > On 2017/12/8 2:25, Ben Hutchings wrote:

Re: [PATCH 4.4 13/16] ocfs2: should wait dio before inode lock in ocfs2_setattr()

On 2017/12/8 14:21, alex chen wrote: > > > On 2017/12/8 13:36, Ben Hutchings wrote: >> On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 12:03 +0800, alex chen wrote: >>> >>> On 2017/12/8 10:26, Ben Hutchings wrote: On Fri, 2017-12-08 at 08:39 +0800, alex chen wrote: > > On 2017/12/8 2:25, Ben Hutchings wrote:

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock

Hi Gang, On 2017/11/30 10:45, Gang He wrote: > Hello Changwei, > > >> On 2017/11/29 16:38, Gang He wrote: >>> Add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock functions, which >>> will be used in non-block IO scenarios. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gang He >>> --- >>>

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock

Hi Gang, On 2017/11/30 10:45, Gang He wrote: > Hello Changwei, > > >> On 2017/11/29 16:38, Gang He wrote: >>> Add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock functions, which >>> will be used in non-block IO scenarios. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gang He >>> --- >>>fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 21

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

It looks fine to me. On 2017/11/29 16:39, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if > overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra > block allocation overhead. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He <g...@suse.com> Reviewed-by:

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

It looks fine to me. On 2017/11/29 16:39, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if > overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra > block allocation overhead. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He Reviewed-by: Changwei Ge >

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock

On 2017/11/29 16:38, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock functions, which > will be used in non-block IO scenarios. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 21 + > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h | 4 > 2 files changed,

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2 1/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock

On 2017/11/29 16:38, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock functions, which > will be used in non-block IO scenarios. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 21 + > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h | 4 > 2 files changed, 25

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

On 2017/11/28 13:44, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> Hi, >> Gang >> >> On 2017/11/27 17:48, Gang He wrote: >>> Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if >>> overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra >>> block allocation overhead. >>> >> >> Can

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

On 2017/11/28 13:44, Gang He wrote: > Hi Changwei, > > >> Hi, >> Gang >> >> On 2017/11/27 17:48, Gang He wrote: >>> Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if >>> overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra >>> block allocation overhead. >>> >> >> Can

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

Hi, Gang On 2017/11/27 17:48, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if > overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra > block allocation overhead. > Can you elaborate how this overhead is introduced? Forgive me, I don't figure it. Thanks,

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

Hi, Gang On 2017/11/27 17:48, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_overwrite_io function, which is used to judge if > overwrite allocated blocks, otherwise, the write will bring extra > block allocation overhead. > Can you elaborate how this overhead is introduced? Forgive me, I don't figure it. Thanks,

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

On 2017/11/28 9:52, piaojun wrote: > Hi Gang, > > If ocfs2_overwrite_io is only called in 'nowait' scenarios, I wonder if > we can discard 'int wait' just as ext4 does: > > static bool ext4_overwrite_io(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, loff_t len); Yes, Jun has a point. It seems that

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 2/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_overwrite_io function

On 2017/11/28 9:52, piaojun wrote: > Hi Gang, > > If ocfs2_overwrite_io is only called in 'nowait' scenarios, I wonder if > we can discard 'int wait' just as ext4 does: > > static bool ext4_overwrite_io(struct inode *inode, loff_t pos, loff_t len); Yes, Jun has a point. It seems that

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock

Hi Gang, On 2017/11/27 17:48, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock functions, which > will be used in non-block IO scenarios. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 22 ++ > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h | 4 > 2

Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH 1/3] ocfs2: add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock

Hi Gang, On 2017/11/27 17:48, Gang He wrote: > Add ocfs2_try_rw_lock and ocfs2_try_inode_lock functions, which > will be used in non-block IO scenarios. > > Signed-off-by: Gang He > --- > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.c | 22 ++ > fs/ocfs2/dlmglue.h | 4 > 2 files changed, 26

Re: mmotm 2016-08-02-15-53 uploaded

Hi Andrew and Vitaly, I do agree that patch ee8f7fcbe638 ("ocfs2/dlm: continue to purge recovery lockres when recovery master goes down", 2016-08-02) introduced an issue. It makes DLM recovery can't pick up a new master for an existed lock resource whose owner died seconds ago. But this patch

Re: mmotm 2016-08-02-15-53 uploaded

Hi Andrew and Vitaly, I do agree that patch ee8f7fcbe638 ("ocfs2/dlm: continue to purge recovery lockres when recovery master goes down", 2016-08-02) introduced an issue. It makes DLM recovery can't pick up a new master for an existed lock resource whose owner died seconds ago. But this patch

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the akpm-current tree

Hi Andrew, On 2017/8/26 5:24, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:15:30 +0000 Changwei Ge <ge.chang...@h3c.com> wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's li

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the akpm-current tree

Hi Andrew, On 2017/8/26 5:24, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Thu, 24 Aug 2017 08:15:30 +0000 Changwei Ge wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote: >>> Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next >>

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the akpm-current tree

Hi Andrew, On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next > build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced these warnings: > fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function 'dlm_free_dead_locks': > fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2306:6: warning: unused

Re: linux-next: build warnings after merge of the akpm-current tree

Hi Andrew, On 2017/8/24 15:42, Stephen Rothwell wrote: > Hi Andrew, After merging the akpm-current tree, today's linux-next > build (x86_64 allmodconfig) produced these warnings: > fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c: In function 'dlm_free_dead_locks': > fs/ocfs2/dlm/dlmrecovery.c:2306:6: warning: unused

Re: [Bug Report] crash in the path of direct IO

Hi Gang, More log before crash is pasted. Also, I gathered some structure's content, which may be useful to analyze this issue. Paste them here too. struct dio_submit { bio = 0x88035690b800, blkbits = 0x9, blkfactor = 0x3, start_zero_done = 0x1, pages_in_io = 0x34,

Re: [Bug Report] crash in the path of direct IO

Hi Gang, More log before crash is pasted. Also, I gathered some structure's content, which may be useful to analyze this issue. Paste them here too. struct dio_submit { bio = 0x88035690b800, blkbits = 0x9, blkfactor = 0x3, start_zero_done = 0x1, pages_in_io = 0x34,

[Bug Report] crash in the path of direct IO

Hi, We encountered a crash issue days ago. The call trace follows as below: >From the call trace, we can see that a direct read request caused this crash issue, which triggered a BUG_ON check point. With the help of debugfs.ocfs2 tool, I can see that clusters owned by the target file are

[Bug Report] crash in the path of direct IO

Hi, We encountered a crash issue days ago. The call trace follows as below: >From the call trace, we can see that a direct read request caused this crash issue, which triggered a BUG_ON check point. With the help of debugfs.ocfs2 tool, I can see that clusters owned by the target file are

[PATCH v3] ocfs2/journal: fix umount hang after flushing journal failure

: Changwei Ge <ge.chang...@h3c.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:05:35 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] fix umount hang after journal flushing failure Signed-off-by: Changwei Ge <ge.chang...@h3c.com> --- fs/ocfs2/journal.c | 18 ++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/jo

[PATCH v3] ocfs2/journal: fix umount hang after flushing journal failure

: Changwei Ge Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2017 09:05:35 +0800 Subject: [PATCH] fix umount hang after journal flushing failure Signed-off-by: Changwei Ge --- fs/ocfs2/journal.c | 18 ++ 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c b/fs/ocfs2/journal.c index a244f14..5f3c862