| Message ID | 20150622184118.GA11277@redhat.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted, archived |
| Delegated to: | Mike Snitzer |
| Headers | show |
On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:41:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > If a block device is hot removed and later last reference to devices > is put, we try to writeback the dirty inode. But device is gone and > that writeback fails. > > Currently we do a WARN_ON() which does not seem to be the right thing. > Convert it to a ratelimited kernel warning. > > Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> Thanks.
Hi Jens, Do you have concerns with this patch? If not, can you please include it. Thanks Vivek On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 02:41:18PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote: > If a block device is hot removed and later last reference to devices > is put, we try to writeback the dirty inode. But device is gone and > that writeback fails. > > Currently we do a WARN_ON() which does not seem to be the right thing. > Convert it to a ratelimited kernel warning. > > Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> > Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> > --- > fs/block_dev.c | 14 +++++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > Index: rhvgoyal-linux/fs/block_dev.c > =================================================================== > --- rhvgoyal-linux.orig/fs/block_dev.c 2015-06-18 15:54:52.339383237 -0400 > +++ rhvgoyal-linux/fs/block_dev.c 2015-06-22 14:32:29.112594493 -0400 > @@ -48,12 +48,20 @@ inline struct block_device *I_BDEV(struc > } > EXPORT_SYMBOL(I_BDEV); > > -static void bdev_write_inode(struct inode *inode) > +static void bdev_write_inode(struct block_device *bdev) > { > + struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode; > + int ret; > + > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > while (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) { > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > - WARN_ON_ONCE(write_inode_now(inode, true)); > + ret = write_inode_now(inode, true); > + if (ret) { > + char name[BDEVNAME_SIZE] = ""; > + pr_warn_ratelimited("VFS: Dirty inode writeback failed for block device %s (err= %d).\n", > + bdevname(bdev, name), ret); > + } > spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); > } > spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); > @@ -1489,7 +1497,7 @@ static void __blkdev_put(struct block_de > * ->release can cause the queue to disappear, so flush all > * dirty data before. > */ > - bdev_write_inode(bdev->bd_inode); > + bdev_write_inode(bdev); > } > if (bdev->bd_contains == bdev) { > if (disk->fops->release) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> writes: > Hi Jens, > > Do you have concerns with this patch? If not, can you please include it. The concept is fine, but: >> -static void bdev_write_inode(struct inode *inode) >> +static void bdev_write_inode(struct block_device *bdev) >> { >> + struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode; >> + int ret; >> + >> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); >> while (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) { >> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); >> - WARN_ON_ONCE(write_inode_now(inode, true)); >> + ret = write_inode_now(inode, true); >> + if (ret) { >> + char name[BDEVNAME_SIZE] = ""; that initializer isn't necessary. Cheers, Jeff -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
Index: rhvgoyal-linux/fs/block_dev.c =================================================================== --- rhvgoyal-linux.orig/fs/block_dev.c 2015-06-18 15:54:52.339383237 -0400 +++ rhvgoyal-linux/fs/block_dev.c 2015-06-22 14:32:29.112594493 -0400 @@ -48,12 +48,20 @@ inline struct block_device *I_BDEV(struc } EXPORT_SYMBOL(I_BDEV); -static void bdev_write_inode(struct inode *inode) +static void bdev_write_inode(struct block_device *bdev) { + struct inode *inode = bdev->bd_inode; + int ret; + spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); while (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) { spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); - WARN_ON_ONCE(write_inode_now(inode, true)); + ret = write_inode_now(inode, true); + if (ret) { + char name[BDEVNAME_SIZE] = ""; + pr_warn_ratelimited("VFS: Dirty inode writeback failed for block device %s (err= %d).\n", + bdevname(bdev, name), ret); + } spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); } spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); @@ -1489,7 +1497,7 @@ static void __blkdev_put(struct block_de * ->release can cause the queue to disappear, so flush all * dirty data before. */ - bdev_write_inode(bdev->bd_inode); + bdev_write_inode(bdev); } if (bdev->bd_contains == bdev) { if (disk->fops->release)
If a block device is hot removed and later last reference to devices is put, we try to writeback the dirty inode. But device is gone and that writeback fails. Currently we do a WARN_ON() which does not seem to be the right thing. Convert it to a ratelimited kernel warning. Reported-by: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> Signed-off-by: Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@redhat.com> --- fs/block_dev.c | 14 +++++++++++--- 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel