On 04/14/17 23:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 04/14, Raouf Rokhjavan wrote:
>> First of all, thank you so much for your help.
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I just ran log-writer with fsstress and found one issue when replaying IOs.
>>> If you replay after mkfs.f2fs, you get the wrong valid checkpoint which was
>>> overwritten by previous run. IOWs, at the beginning of replay, there was
>>> no *correct* checkpoint representing that initial moment. So, I think you
>>> need to replay the log including mkfs.
>> I made check my scripts to make sure about the CKPT in the boundary of mkfs.
>> To do that, I wrote something which produces this output:
>>
>> SECTION -- f2fs_consistency
>> FSTYP -- f2fs
>> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 localhost 4.9.8
>>
>> generic/009 1s ... 1s
>> Ran: generic/009
>> Passed all 1 tests
>>
>> SECTION -- f2fs_consistency
>> =========================
>> Ran: generic/009
>> Passed all 1 tests
>>
>> ***** Replaying mkfs *****
>> mkfs_end entry is 1552.
>> CKPT after mkfs_end
>> Info: CKPT version = 6bd74d5f
>>
>> Replaying test #009 ...
>>
>> START_ENTRY is 1553
>> END_ENTRY is 1825
>>
>> ***** Entry #1553 *****
>> CKPT after replay
>> Info: CKPT version = 6bd74d5f
>> CKPT after mount/umount
> What does this mean? Did you mount/umount after replaying each entry?
> I suspect it will break the original behaviors resulting in fs inconsistency.
My test logic is this:
1. setup a log-writes dm-device including including REPLAYDEV and LOGDEV.
2. run mkfs.f2fs on log-writes dm-device
3. run a xfstests on log-writes dm-device which is mounted and
configured as xfstests' TEST_DEV (no SCRATCH_DEV is configured in order
to control the mkfs log and replay process)
4. remove the log-writes dm-device
5. replay the logs of mkfs
6. replay remaining entries from mkfs_end mark up to the end of log and
check the consistency of file system
- replay each entry -> fsck.f2fs -> mount, umount > fsck.f2fs
The gist of my scripts is something like this:
# ./replay-log --log $LOGDEV --replay $REPLAYDEV --end-mark mkfs_end
# ./replay-log -v --log $LOGDEV --replay $REPLAYDEV --start-mark
009_start --fsck "./fsck_script.sh" --check 1
*** ./fsck_script.sh ***
fsck.f2fs $REPLAYDEV
mount -t f2fs $REPLAYDEV $CCTESTS_MNT
umount $CCTESTS_MNT
fsck.f2fs $REPLAYDEV
I do this since it's quite similar to what occurs during the power
failure. At any given point (any entry) system crashes, and after that,
the file system is mounted/umounted.
>
> BTW, when I tested below, I couldn't find any issue.
>
> # dmsetup create log
> # mkfs.f2fs
> # run xfstests/009
> # dmsetup remove log
> # ./replay-log --log log --replay dev --fsck "fsck.f2fs dev" --check fua
You run fsck after FUA command to block layer, is there any specific
reason for that? Since I thought REQ_FUA guarantees writing requests to
devices which leads to a consistent state. It is not quite
what we're looking for, testing the file system response in the face of
inconsistency, Am I right?
Regards, Raouf Rokhjavan
>
> It'd be helpful that I can reproduce this tho. ;)
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Info: CKPT version = 6bd74d60
>>
>> ***** Entry #1554 *****
>> CKPT after replay
>> Info: CKPT version = 6bd74d60
>> CKPT after mount/umount
>> Info: CKPT version = 6bd74d61
>>
>> (Continues until)
>>
>> ***** Entry #1703 *****
>> CKPT after replay
>> Info: CKPT version = 6bd74df1
>> CKPT after mount/umount
>> Info: CKPT version = 6bd74df2
>>
>> ***** Entry #1704 *****
>> CKPT after replay
>> (fsck.f2fs with no option asks question at this point)
>>> You can verify the below CKPT version info.
>>> As I mentioned above, I guess you did with "--start-mark mkfs" which will
>>> lose
>>> the initial checkpoint.
>> As you can see in the result, the CKPT after mkfs replay matches with the
>> CKPT after the first entry replay, so we can conclude CKPT is valid at this
>> point. Accordingly, I believe everything goes well up to this point, Am I
>> right?
>>> The -p [level] and default level is zero, which checks the image iif runtime
>>> f2fs reported any bug case before. Otherwise, it simply returns. If you set
>>> level 1, fsck.f2fs will check basic FS metadata parts.
>> Does it mean if f2fs module reports nothing as it does in my case (Entry
>> 1704), the fs is consistent?
>> If so, why does fsck.f2fs complain about inaccessible NAT nodes which means
>> inconsistency, at least based on what I think?
>>
>> I do appreciate.
>>
>> Regards, Raouf Rokhjavan
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
