On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 04:37:46PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote:
> During transaction cleanup after an abort we are just removing roots from the
> ordered roots list which is incorrect. We have a BUG_ON() to make sure that the
> root is still part of the ordered roots list when we put our ordered extent
> which we were tripping in this case. So do like we do everywhere else and just
> move it to the tail of the ordered roots list and allow the normal cleanup to
> take care of stuff. Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/disk-io.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> index f38211f..872b4ce 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/disk-io.c
> @@ -3835,7 +3835,8 @@ static void btrfs_destroy_all_ordered_extents(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> while (!list_empty(&splice)) {
> root = list_first_entry(&splice, struct btrfs_root,
> ordered_root);
> - list_del_init(&root->ordered_root);
> + list_move_tail(&root->ordered_root,
> + &fs_info->ordered_roots);
This function basically only does:
lock
list_for_each
lock
list_for_each
set_bit
Could we instead add a bit to the root or trans or fs_info or anything
else that could be trivialy set in _destroy_all_ordered_extents and
tested in _finish_ordered_io()? It'd remove a bunch of tedious locking
and iteration here.
The similar metaphor in the core page cache is (address_space->flags |
AS_EIO).
Would that be too coarse or racey?
- z
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
