> On 9/10/25 21:58, wangzijie wrote:
> > When the data layout is like this:
> > dnode1:                     dnode2:
> > [0]      A                  [0]    NEW_ADDR
> > [1]      A+1                [1]    0x0
> > ...                         ....
> > [1016]   A+1016
> > [1017]   B (B!=A+1017)      [1017] 0x0
> > 
> > We can build this kind of layout by following steps(with i_extra_isize:36):
> > ./f2fs_io write 1 0 1881 rand dsync testfile
> > ./f2fs_io write 1 1881 1 rand buffered testfile
> > ./f2fs_io fallocate 0 7708672 4096 testfile
> > 
> > And when we map first data block in dnode2, we will get wrong extent_info 
> > data:
> > map->m_len = 1
> > ofs = start_pgofs - map->m_lblk = 1882 - 1881 = 1
> > 
> > ei.fofs = start_pgofs = 1882
> > ei.len = map->m_len - ofs = 1 - 1 = 0
> 
> Hi Zijie,
> 
> I tried to reproduce w/ below steps:
> 
> f2fs_io write 1 0 1881 rand dsync testfile
> f2fs_io write 1 1881 1 rand buffered testfile
> f2fs_io fallocate 0 7708672 4096 testfile
> umount
> mount
> f2fs_io precache_extents testfile
> 
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.855817: f2fs_lookup_start: dev = 
> (253,16), pino = 3, name:testfile, flags:65537
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.855870: f2fs_submit_read_bio: dev 
> = (253,16)/(253,16), rw = READ(), DATA, sector = 139280, size = 4096
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856116: f2fs_submit_folio_bio: dev 
> = (253,16), ino = 1, folio_index = 0x5, oldaddr = 0x5553, newaddr = 0x5553, 
> rw = READ(), type = HOT_NODE
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856147: f2fs_submit_read_bio: dev 
> = (253,16)/(253,16), rw = READ(), NODE, sector = 174744, size = 4096
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856273: f2fs_iget: dev = (253,16), 
> ino = 5, pino = 3, i_mode = 0x81ed, i_size = 7712768, i_nlink = 1, i_blocks = 
> 15080, i_advise = 0x0
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856305: f2fs_lookup_end: dev = 
> (253,16), pino = 3, name:testfile, ino:5, err:0
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856316: 
> f2fs_lookup_extent_tree_start: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 0, type = Read
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856317: 
> f2fs_lookup_read_extent_tree_end: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 0, 
> read_ext_info(fofs: 0, len: 512, blk: 1055744)
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856317: f2fs_map_blocks: dev = 
> (253,16), ino = 5, file offset = 0, start blkaddr = 0x101c00, len = 0x200, 
> flags = 2, seg_type = 8, may_create = 0, multidevice = 0, flag = 6, err = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856318: 
> f2fs_lookup_extent_tree_start: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 512, type = 
> Read
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856318: 
> f2fs_lookup_read_extent_tree_end: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 512, 
> read_ext_info(fofs: 0, len: 0, blk: 0)
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856323: 
> f2fs_update_read_extent_tree_range: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 512, len 
> = 352, blkaddr = 18432, c_len = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856328: f2fs_submit_folio_bio: dev 
> = (253,16), ino = 1, folio_index = 0x6, oldaddr = 0x5556, newaddr = 0x5556, 
> rw = READ(), type = HOT_NODE
>          f2fs_io-921     [013] .....  1049.856329: f2fs_submit_read_bio: dev 
> = (253,16)/(253,16), rw = READ(), NODE, sector = 174768, size = 4096
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.856968: 
> f2fs_update_read_extent_tree_range: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 864, len 
> = 160, blkaddr = 18784, c_len = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857002: f2fs_map_blocks: dev = 
> (253,16), ino = 5, file offset = 512, start blkaddr = 0x4800, len = 0x200, 
> flags = 2, seg_type = 8, may_create = 0, multidevice = 0, flag = 6, err = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857003: 
> f2fs_lookup_extent_tree_start: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1025, type = 
> Read
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857004: 
> f2fs_lookup_read_extent_tree_end: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1025, 
> read_ext_info(fofs: 0, len: 0, blk: 0)
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857010: 
> f2fs_update_read_extent_tree_range: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1025, 
> len = 511, blkaddr = 19457, c_len = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857011: f2fs_map_blocks: dev = 
> (253,16), ino = 5, file offset = 1025, start blkaddr = 0x4c01, len = 0x1ff, 
> flags = 2, seg_type = 8, may_create = 0, multidevice = 0, flag = 6, err = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857012: 
> f2fs_lookup_extent_tree_start: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1537, type = 
> Read
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857012: 
> f2fs_lookup_read_extent_tree_end: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1537, 
> read_ext_info(fofs: 0, len: 0, blk: 0)
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857016: 
> f2fs_update_read_extent_tree_range: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1537, 
> len = 344, blkaddr = 20993, c_len = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857016: f2fs_map_blocks: dev = 
> (253,16), ino = 5, file offset = 1537, start blkaddr = 0x5201, len = 0x158, 
> flags = 2, seg_type = 8, may_create = 0, multidevice = 0, flag = 6, err = 0
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857017: 
> f2fs_lookup_extent_tree_start: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1882, type = 
> Read
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857017: 
> f2fs_lookup_read_extent_tree_end: dev = (253,16), ino = 5, pgofs = 1882, 
> read_ext_info(fofs: 0, len: 0, blk: 0)
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857024: f2fs_submit_folio_bio: dev 
> = (253,16), ino = 1, folio_index = 0x7, oldaddr = 0x5555, newaddr = 0x5555, 
> rw = READ(), type = HOT_NODE
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857026: f2fs_submit_read_bio: dev 
> = (253,16)/(253,16), rw = READ(), NODE, sector = 174760, size = 4096
>          f2fs_io-921     [021] .....  1049.857156: f2fs_map_blocks: dev = 
> (253,16), ino = 5, file offset = 1882, start blkaddr = 0x5201, len = 0x0, 
> flags = 0, seg_type = 8, may_create = 0, multidevice = 0, flag = 6, err = 0
> 
> It seems f2fs_update_read_extent_tree_range() won't insert a zero-sized 
> extent?
> Or am I missing something?
> 
> Thanks,

>From the trace, it seems that the data layout is not like what I described?

> > 
> > Fix it by skipping updating this kind of extent info.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: wangzijie <wangzij...@honor.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/f2fs/data.c | 3 +++
> >  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > index 7961e0ddf..b8bb71852 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> > @@ -1649,6 +1649,9 @@ int f2fs_map_blocks(struct inode *inode, struct 
> > f2fs_map_blocks *map, int flag)
> >  
> >             switch (flag) {
> >             case F2FS_GET_BLOCK_PRECACHE:
> > +                   if (__is_valid_data_blkaddr(map->m_pblk) &&
> > +                           start_pgofs - map->m_lblk == map->m_len)
> > +                           map->m_flags &= ~F2FS_MAP_MAPPED;
> >                     goto sync_out;
> >             case F2FS_GET_BLOCK_BMAP:
> >                     map->m_pblk = 0;




_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

Reply via email to