linux-toradex.git/include/linux/jbd2.h, branch v3.4.16

ext4: make sure the journal sb is written in ext4_clear_journal_err()

2012-08-26T22:00:42+00:00

commit d796c52ef0b71a988364f6109aeb63d79c5b116b upstream.

After we transfer set the EXT4_ERROR_FS bit in the file system
superblock, it's not enough to call jbd2_journal_clear_err() to clear
the error indication from journal superblock --- we need to call
jbd2_journal_update_sb_errno() as well.  Otherwise, when the root file
system is mounted read-only, the journal is replayed, and the error
indicator is transferred to the superblock --- but the s_errno field
in the jbd2 superblock is left set (since although we cleared it in
memory, we never flushed it out to disk).

This can end up confusing e2fsck.  We should make e2fsck more robust
in this case, but the kernel shouldn't be leaving things in this
confused state, either.

Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o" 
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman

jbd2: cleanup journal tail after transaction commit

2012-03-14T02:45:38+00:00

Normally, we have to issue a cache flush before we can update journal tail in
journal superblock, effectively wiping out old transactions from the journal.
So use the fact that during transaction commit we issue cache flush anyway and
opportunistically push journal tail as far as we can. Since update of journal
superblock is still costly (we have to use WRITE_FUA), we update log tail only
if we can free significant amount of space.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jbd2: issue cache flush after checkpointing even with internal journal

2012-03-14T02:22:54+00:00

When we reach jbd2_cleanup_journal_tail(), there is no guarantee that
checkpointed buffers are on a stable storage - especially if buffers were
written out by jbd2_log_do_checkpoint(), they are likely to be only in disk's
caches. Thus when we update journal superblock effectively removing old
transaction from journal, this write of superblock can get to stable storage
before those checkpointed buffers which can result in filesystem corruption
after a crash. Thus we must unconditionally issue a cache flush before we
update journal superblock in these cases.

A similar problem can also occur if journal superblock is written only in
disk's caches, other transaction starts reusing space of the transaction
cleaned from the log and power failure happens. Subsequent journal replay would
still try to replay the old transaction but some of it's blocks may be already
overwritten by the new transaction. For this reason we must use WRITE_FUA when
updating log tail and we must first write new log tail to disk and update
in-memory information only after that.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jbd2: split updating of journal superblock and marking journal empty

2012-03-13T19:41:04+00:00

There are three case of updating journal superblock. In the first case, we want
to mark journal as empty (setting s_sequence to 0), in the second case we want
to update log tail, in the third case we want to update s_errno. Split these
cases into separate functions. It makes the code slightly more straightforward
and later patches will make the distinction even more important.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jbd2: allocate transaction from separate slab cache

2012-02-20T22:53:02+00:00

There is normally only a handful of these active at any one time, but
putting them in a separate slab cache makes debugging memory
corruption problems easier.  Manish Katiyar also wanted this make it
easier to test memory failure scenarios in the jbd2 layer.

Cc: Manish Katiyar 
Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jbd2: clear revoked flag on buffers before a new transaction started

2011-12-28T22:46:46+00:00

Currently, we clear revoked flag only when a block is reused.  However,
this can tigger a false journal error.  Consider a situation when a block
is used as a meta block and is deleted(revoked) in ordered mode, then the
block is allocated as a data block to a file.  At this moment, user changes
the file's journal mode from ordered to journaled and truncates the file.
The block will be considered re-revoked by journal because it has revoked
flag still pending from the last transaction and an assertion triggers.

We fix the problem by keeping the revoked status more uptodate - we clear
revoked flag when switching revoke tables to reflect there is no revoked
buffers in current transaction any more.

Signed-off-by: Yongqiang Yang 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jdb/jbd2: factor out common functions from the jbd[2] header files

2011-10-27T08:38:18+00:00

The state bits and the lock functions of jbd and jbd2 are
identical.  Share them.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jbd2: use gfp_t instead of int

2011-09-04T14:20:14+00:00

This silences some Sparse warnings:
fs/jbd2/transaction.c:135:69: warning: incorrect type in argument 2 (different base types)
fs/jbd2/transaction.c:135:69:    expected restricted gfp_t [usertype] flags
fs/jbd2/transaction.c:135:69:    got int [signed] gfp_mask

Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jbd2: remove jbd2_dev_to_name() from jbd2 tracepoints

2011-07-11T02:05:08+00:00

Using function calls in TP_printk causes perf heartburn, so print the
MAJOR/MINOR device numbers instead.

Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"

jbd2: Fix oops in jbd2_journal_remove_journal_head()

2011-06-13T19:38:22+00:00

jbd2_journal_remove_journal_head() can oops when trying to access
journal_head returned by bh2jh(). This is caused for example by the
following race:

	TASK1					TASK2
  jbd2_journal_commit_transaction()
    ...
    processing t_forget list
      __jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(jh);
      if (!jh->b_transaction) {
        jbd_unlock_bh_state(bh);
					jbd2_journal_try_to_free_buffers()
					  jbd2_journal_grab_journal_head(bh)
					  jbd_lock_bh_state(bh)
					  __journal_try_to_free_buffer()
					  jbd2_journal_put_journal_head(jh)
        jbd2_journal_remove_journal_head(bh);

jbd2_journal_put_journal_head() in TASK2 sees that b_jcount == 0 and
buffer is not part of any transaction and thus frees journal_head
before TASK1 gets to doing so. Note that even buffer_head can be
released by try_to_free_buffers() after
jbd2_journal_put_journal_head() which adds even larger opportunity for
oops (but I didn't see this happen in reality).

Fix the problem by making transactions hold their own journal_head
reference (in b_jcount). That way we don't have to remove journal_head
explicitely via jbd2_journal_remove_journal_head() and instead just
remove journal_head when b_jcount drops to zero. The result of this is
that [__]jbd2_journal_refile_buffer(),
[__]jbd2_journal_unfile_buffer(), and
__jdb2_journal_remove_checkpoint() can free journal_head which needs
modification of a few callers. Also we have to be careful because once
journal_head is removed, buffer_head might be freed as well. So we
have to get our own buffer_head reference where it matters.

Signed-off-by: Jan Kara 
Signed-off-by: "Theodore Ts'o"