On 2017/9/1 12:19, heyunlei wrote:
>
> Hi Yunlei,
>
> On 2017/8/26 12:15, Yunlei He wrote:
>> The loop reason is DIRTY IMETA always equal to 1:
>>
>> Thread A:
>> -write_checkpoint
>> -block_operations
>> -f2fs_sync_inode_meta
>> -igrab <--- here igrab return NULL
>>
>> Thread B:
>> -f2fs_evict_inode
>> -remove_inode_page
>> -truncate_xattr_node
>> -__get_node_page
>> -read_node_page <---- here return -ENOENT
>>
>> This patch walk around this cause.
>
> It needs to figure out root cause that why xattr node entry is invalid.
>
> How about this modification:
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> index b4c401d..62de5f7 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> @@ -497,7 +497,7 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> f2fs_lock_op(sbi);
> err = remove_inode_page(inode);
> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> - if (err == -ENOENT)
> + if (err == -ENOENT && is_bad_inode(inode))
So we expect that before new inode page was allocated, it needs to set bad inode
in time covering all error paths?
Thanks,
> err = 0;
> }
>
> Thanks
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlei He <heyun...@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/node.c | 3 ++-
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c index 2654c91..ec7a0e0
>> 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
>> @@ -973,8 +973,9 @@ int truncate_xattr_node(struct inode *inode, struct page
>> *page)
>> return 0;
>>
>> npage = get_node_page(sbi, nid);
>> - if (IS_ERR(npage))
>> + if (IS_ERR(npage) && PTR_ERR(npage) != -ENOENT) {
>> return PTR_ERR(npage);
>> + }
>>
>> f2fs_i_xnid_write(inode, 0);
>>
>>
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
