On 2025/9/5 00:22, Mateusz Guzik wrote: > On Thu, Sep 4, 2025 at 6:15 PM Mark Tinguely <mark.tinguely@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On 9/4/25 10:42 AM, Mateusz Guzik wrote: >>> This postpones the writeout to ocfs2_evict_inode(), which I'm told is >>> fine (tm). >>> >>> The intent is to retire the I_WILL_FREE flag. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@xxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >>> ACHTUNG: only compile-time tested. Need an ocfs2 person to ack it. >>> >>> btw grep shows comments referencing ocfs2_drop_inode() which are already >>> stale on the stock kernel, I opted to not touch them. >>> >>> This ties into an effort to remove the I_WILL_FREE flag, unblocking >>> other work. If accepted would be probably best taken through vfs >>> branches with said work, see https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/vfs/vfs.git/log/?h=vfs-6.18.inode.refcount.preliminaries__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!OLwk8DVo7uvC-Pd6XVTiUCgP6MUDMKBMEyuV27h_yPGXOjaq078-kMdC9ILFoYQh-4WX93yb0nMfBDFFY_0$ >>> >>> fs/ocfs2/inode.c | 23 ++--------------------- >>> fs/ocfs2/inode.h | 1 - >>> fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_trace.h | 2 -- >>> fs/ocfs2/super.c | 2 +- >>> 4 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c >>> index 6c4f78f473fb..5f4a2cbc505d 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/inode.c >>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/inode.c >>> @@ -1290,6 +1290,8 @@ static void ocfs2_clear_inode(struct inode *inode) >>> >>> void ocfs2_evict_inode(struct inode *inode) >>> { >>> + write_inode_now(inode, 1); >>> + >>> if (!inode->i_nlink || >>> (OCFS2_I(inode)->ip_flags & OCFS2_INODE_MAYBE_ORPHANED)) { >>> ocfs2_delete_inode(inode); >>> @@ -1299,27 +1301,6 @@ void ocfs2_evict_inode(struct inode *inode) >>> ocfs2_clear_inode(inode); >>> } >>> >>> -/* Called under inode_lock, with no more references on the >>> - * struct inode, so it's safe here to check the flags field >>> - * and to manipulate i_nlink without any other locks. */ >>> -int ocfs2_drop_inode(struct inode *inode) >>> -{ >>> - struct ocfs2_inode_info *oi = OCFS2_I(inode); >>> - >>> - trace_ocfs2_drop_inode((unsigned long long)oi->ip_blkno, >>> - inode->i_nlink, oi->ip_flags); >>> - >>> - assert_spin_locked(&inode->i_lock); >>> - inode->i_state |= I_WILL_FREE; >>> - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock); >>> - write_inode_now(inode, 1); >>> - spin_lock(&inode->i_lock); >>> - WARN_ON(inode->i_state & I_NEW); >>> - inode->i_state &= ~I_WILL_FREE; >>> - >>> - return 1; >>> -} >>> - >>> /* >>> * This is called from our getattr. >>> */ >>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/inode.h b/fs/ocfs2/inode.h >>> index accf03d4765e..07bd838e7843 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/inode.h >>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/inode.h >>> @@ -116,7 +116,6 @@ static inline struct ocfs2_caching_info *INODE_CACHE(struct inode *inode) >>> } >>> >>> void ocfs2_evict_inode(struct inode *inode); >>> -int ocfs2_drop_inode(struct inode *inode); >>> >>> /* Flags for ocfs2_iget() */ >>> #define OCFS2_FI_FLAG_SYSFILE 0x1 >>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_trace.h b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_trace.h >>> index 54ed1495de9a..4b32fb5658ad 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_trace.h >>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/ocfs2_trace.h >>> @@ -1569,8 +1569,6 @@ DEFINE_OCFS2_ULL_ULL_UINT_EVENT(ocfs2_delete_inode); >>> >>> DEFINE_OCFS2_ULL_UINT_EVENT(ocfs2_clear_inode); >>> >>> -DEFINE_OCFS2_ULL_UINT_UINT_EVENT(ocfs2_drop_inode); >>> - >>> TRACE_EVENT(ocfs2_inode_revalidate, >>> TP_PROTO(void *inode, unsigned long long ino, >>> unsigned int flags), >>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/super.c b/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>> index 53daa4482406..e4b0d25f4869 100644 >>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/super.c >>> @@ -129,7 +129,7 @@ static const struct super_operations ocfs2_sops = { >>> .statfs = ocfs2_statfs, >>> .alloc_inode = ocfs2_alloc_inode, >>> .free_inode = ocfs2_free_inode, >>> - .drop_inode = ocfs2_drop_inode, >>> + .drop_inode = generic_delete_inode, >>> .evict_inode = ocfs2_evict_inode, >>> .sync_fs = ocfs2_sync_fs, >>> .put_super = ocfs2_put_super, >> >> >> I agree, fileystems should not use I_FREEING/I_WILL_FREE. >> Doing the sync write_inode_now() should be fine in ocfs_evict_inode(). >> >> Question is ocfs_drop_inode. In commit 513e2dae9422: >> ocfs2: flush inode data to disk and free inode when i_count becomes zero >> the return of 1 drops immediate to fix a memory caching issue. >> Shouldn't .drop_inode() still return 1? > > generic_delete_inode is a stub doing just that. > In case of "drop = 0", it may return directly without calling evict(). This seems break the expectation of commit 513e2dae9422. Thanks, Joseph
