On 09/13, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/9/13 3:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/9/12 9:40, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>> On 2018/9/12 9:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>> On 2018/9/12 8:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>> On 09/11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 4:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> fsck.f2fs is able to recover the quota structure, since
> >>>>>>>>> roll-forward recovery
> >>>>>>>>> can recover it based on previous user information.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I didn't get it, both fsck and kernel recover quota file based all
> >>>>>>>> inodes'
> >>>>>>>> uid/gid/prjid, if {x}id didn't change, wouldn't those two recovery
> >>>>>>>> result be the
> >>>>>>>> same?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I thought that, but had to add this, since I was encountering quota
> >>>>>>> errors right
> >>>>>>> after getting some files recovered. And, I thought it'd make it more
> >>>>>>> safe to do
> >>>>>>> fsck after roll-forward recovery.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anyway, let me test again without this patch for a while.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmm, I just got a fsck failure right after some files recovered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> To make sure, do you test with "f2fs: guarantee journalled quota data by
> >>>>> checkpoint"? if not, I think there is no guarantee that f2fs can recover
> >>>>> quote info into correct quote file, because, in last checkpoint, quota
> >>>>> file
> >>>>> may was corrupted/inconsistent. Right?
> >>>
> >>> Oh, I forget to mention that, I add a patch to fsck to let it noticing
> >>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG flag, and by default, fsck will fix corrupted
> >>> quote
> >>> file if the flag is set, but w/o this flag, quota file is still corrupted
> >>> detected by fsck, I guess there is bug in v8.
> >>
> >> In v8, there are two cases we didn't guarantee quota file's consistence:
> >> 1. flush time in block_operation exceed a threshold.
> >> 2. dquot subsystem error occurs.
> >>
> >> For above case, fsck should repair the quota file by default.
> >
> > Okay, I got another failure and it seems CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG was not set
> > during the recovery. So, we have something missing in the recovery in terms
> > of quota updates.
>
> Yeah, I checked the code, just found one suspected place:
>
> find_fsync_dnodes()
> - f2fs_recover_inode_page
> - inc_valid_node_count
> - dquot_reserve_block dquot info is not initialized now
> - add_fsync_inode
> - dquot_initialize
>
> I think we should reserve block for inode block after dquot_initialize(), can
> you confirm this?
Let me test this.
>From b90260bc577fe87570b1ef7b134554a8295b1f6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org>
Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:14:41 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: count inode block for recovered files
If a new file is recovered, we missed to reserve its inode block.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org>
---
fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 5 +++++
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
index 56d34193a74b..bff5cf730e13 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c
@@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ static struct fsync_inode_entry *add_fsync_inode(struct
f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
err = dquot_alloc_inode(inode);
if (err)
goto err_out;
+ err = dquot_reserve_block(inode, 1);
+ if (err) {
+ dquot_drop(inode);
+ goto err_out;
+ }
}
entry = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(fsync_entry_slab, GFP_F2FS_ZERO);
--
2.17.0.441.gb46fe60e1d-goog
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
