Forget all dirty_entries before stable big_write or delete during initialisation
This fixes a 'double_alloc' assertion in the following case: - big_write object #1 v1 to block #100 - big_write object #1 v2 to block #101 - big_write object #2 v1 to block #100
This commit is contained in:
+10
-6
@@ -564,7 +564,7 @@ int blockstore_init_journal::handle_journal_part(void *buf, uint64_t done_pos, u
|
||||
unstab = unstab < ov.version ? ov.version : unstab;
|
||||
if (je->type == JE_SMALL_WRITE_INSTANT)
|
||||
{
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov);
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov, true);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -620,7 +620,8 @@ int blockstore_init_journal::handle_journal_part(void *buf, uint64_t done_pos, u
|
||||
if (bs->data_alloc->get(je->big_write.location >> bs->block_order))
|
||||
{
|
||||
// This is probably a big_write that's already flushed and freed, but it may
|
||||
// also indicate a bug. So we remember such entries and recheck them afterwards
|
||||
// also indicate a bug. So we remember such entries and recheck them afterwards.
|
||||
// If it's not a bug they won't be present after reading the whole journal.
|
||||
dirty_it->second.location = UINT64_MAX;
|
||||
double_allocs.push_back(ov);
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -646,7 +647,7 @@ int blockstore_init_journal::handle_journal_part(void *buf, uint64_t done_pos, u
|
||||
unstab = unstab < ov.version ? ov.version : unstab;
|
||||
if (je->type == JE_BIG_WRITE_INSTANT)
|
||||
{
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov);
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov, true);
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -660,7 +661,7 @@ int blockstore_init_journal::handle_journal_part(void *buf, uint64_t done_pos, u
|
||||
.oid = je->stable.oid,
|
||||
.version = je->stable.version,
|
||||
};
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov);
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov, true);
|
||||
}
|
||||
else if (je->type == JE_ROLLBACK)
|
||||
{
|
||||
@@ -716,7 +717,7 @@ int blockstore_init_journal::handle_journal_part(void *buf, uint64_t done_pos, u
|
||||
bs->journal.used_sectors[proc_pos]++;
|
||||
// Deletions are treated as immediately stable, because
|
||||
// "2-phase commit" (write->stabilize) isn't sufficient for them anyway
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov);
|
||||
bs->mark_stable(ov, true);
|
||||
}
|
||||
// Ignore delete if neither preceding dirty entries nor the clean one are present
|
||||
}
|
||||
@@ -748,7 +749,10 @@ void blockstore_init_journal::erase_dirty_object(blockstore_dirty_db_t::iterator
|
||||
break;
|
||||
}
|
||||
}
|
||||
bs->erase_dirty(dirty_it, dirty_end, UINT64_MAX);
|
||||
auto clean_it = bs->clean_db.find(oid);
|
||||
uint64_t clean_loc = clean_it != bs->clean_db.end()
|
||||
? clean_it->second.location : UINT64_MAX;
|
||||
bs->erase_dirty(dirty_it, dirty_end, clean_loc);
|
||||
// Remove it from the flusher's queue, too
|
||||
// Otherwise it may end up referring to a small unstable write after reading the rest of the journal
|
||||
bs->flusher->remove_flush(oid);
|
||||
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user