On 2018/12/14 22:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 12/14, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 12, 2018 at 11:36:08AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2018/12/12 11:17, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2018 at 05:47:31PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> On 2018/12/1 4:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 09:42:39AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2018/11/27 8:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/26, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> When there is a failure in f2fs_fill_super() after/during
>>>>>>>>>> the recovery of fsync'd nodes, it frees the current sbi and
>>>>>>>>>> retries again. This time the mount is successful, but the files
>>>>>>>>>> that got recovered before retry, still holds the extent tree,
>>>>>>>>>> whose extent nodes list is corrupted since sbi and sbi->extent_list
>>>>>>>>>> is freed up. The list_del corruption issue is observed when the
>>>>>>>>>> file system is getting unmounted and when those recoverd files extent
>>>>>>>>>> node is being freed up in the below context.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> list_del corruption. prev->next should be fffffff1e1ef5480, but was
>>>>>>>>>> (null)
>>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>>> kernel BUG at kernel/msm-4.14/lib/list_debug.c:53!
>>>>>>>>>> task: fffffff1f46f2280 task.stack: ffffff8008068000
>>>>>>>>>> lr : __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0xb4
>>>>>>>>>> pc : __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0xb4
>>>>>>>>>> <...>
>>>>>>>>>> Call trace:
>>>>>>>>>> __list_del_entry_valid+0x94/0xb4
>>>>>>>>>> __release_extent_node+0xb0/0x114
>>>>>>>>>> __free_extent_tree+0x58/0x7c
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_shrink_extent_tree+0xdc/0x3b0
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_leave_shrinker+0x28/0x7c
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_put_super+0xfc/0x1e0
>>>>>>>>>> generic_shutdown_super+0x70/0xf4
>>>>>>>>>> kill_block_super+0x2c/0x5c
>>>>>>>>>> kill_f2fs_super+0x44/0x50
>>>>>>>>>> deactivate_locked_super+0x60/0x8c
>>>>>>>>>> deactivate_super+0x68/0x74
>>>>>>>>>> cleanup_mnt+0x40/0x78
>>>>>>>>>> __cleanup_mnt+0x1c/0x28
>>>>>>>>>> task_work_run+0x48/0xd0
>>>>>>>>>> do_notify_resume+0x678/0xe98
>>>>>>>>>> work_pending+0x8/0x14
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Fix this by cleaning up inodes, extent tree and nodes of those
>>>>>>>>>> recovered files before freeing up sbi and before next retry.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stumm...@codeaurora.org>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> v2:
>>>>>>>>>> -call evict_inodes() and f2fs_shrink_extent_tree() to cleanup inodes
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/shrinker.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 13 ++++++++++++-
>>>>>>>>>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>>>>>> index 1e03197..aaee63b 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3407,6 +3407,7 @@ struct rb_entry
>>>>>>>>>> *f2fs_lookup_rb_tree_ret(struct rb_root_cached *root,
>>>>>>>>>> bool f2fs_check_rb_tree_consistence(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>>>>>>> struct rb_root_cached
>>>>>>>>>> *root);
>>>>>>>>>> unsigned int f2fs_shrink_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int
>>>>>>>>>> nr_shrink);
>>>>>>>>>> +unsigned long __count_extent_cache(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi);
>>>>>>>>>> bool f2fs_init_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, struct f2fs_extent
>>>>>>>>>> *i_ext);
>>>>>>>>>> void f2fs_drop_extent_tree(struct inode *inode);
>>>>>>>>>> unsigned int f2fs_destroy_extent_node(struct inode *inode);
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c b/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c
>>>>>>>>>> index 9e13db9..7e3c13b 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/shrinker.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static unsigned long __count_free_nids(struct
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>> return count > 0 ? count : 0;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> -static unsigned long __count_extent_cache(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>> +unsigned long __count_extent_cache(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> return atomic_read(&sbi->total_zombie_tree) +
>>>>>>>>>> atomic_read(&sbi->total_ext_node);
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>> index af58b2c..769e7b1 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3016,6 +3016,16 @@ static void f2fs_tuning_parameters(struct
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>> sbi->readdir_ra = 1;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> +static void f2fs_cleanup_inodes(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
>>>>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>>>>> + struct super_block *sb = sbi->sb;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> + sync_filesystem(sb);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This writes another checkpoint, which would not be what this retrial
>>>>>>>>> intended.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Actually, checkpoint will not be triggered due to SBI_POR_DOING flag
>>>>>>>> check
>>>>>>>> as below:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> int f2fs_sync_fs(struct super_block *sb, int sync)
>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>> return -EAGAIN;
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And also all dirty data/node won't be persisted due to SBI_POR_DOING
>>>>>>>> flag,
>>>>>>>> IIUC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks Chao for the clarification.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you still have any further concerns or comments on this patch?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Could you try the below first?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- How about adding a condition in f2fs_may_extent_tree() when adding
>>>>>> extents?
>>>>>> -- Likewise, if (shrinker is not registered) return false;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If we can fix what you described directly, I don't want to rely on such
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> assumptions saying we won't do checkpoint. This flow literally says
>>>>>> syncing
>>>>>> and evicting cached objects, which opposed to what we'd like to drop all
>>>>>> caches
>>>>>> and restart fill_super again.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let me consider this as a final resolution.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jaegeuk,
>>>>>
>>>>> Still I want to ask, what kind of scenario we have to add retry logic in
>>>>> fill_super for? As in android scenario, it must be extreme rare case that
>>>>> system runs out-of-memory in boot time...at least, I didn't get any kind
>>>>> of
>>>>> report like that.
>>>>>
>>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> Hi Sahitya,
>>>
>>> Thanks for letting me know that, I git-blamed the code, and found the
>>> original intention is like what you described:
>>>
>>> commit ed2e621a95d704e6a4e904cc00524e8cbddda0c2
>>> Author: Jaegeuk Kim <jaeg...@kernel.org>
>>> Date: Fri Aug 8 15:37:41 2014 -0700
>>>
>>> f2fs: give a chance to mount again when encountering errors
>>>
>>> This patch gives another chance to try mount process when we encounter
>>> an error.
>>> This makes an effect on the roll-forward recovery failures as well.
>>>
>>> But I doubt that if we failed in recovery, maybe there is corruption in
>>> this image, would it be better to fail the mount, and let user fsck it and
>>> retry the mount? otherwise, the corruption may be expanded...
>
> The problem was there was no way to recover roll-forward area by fsck. IOWs,
> mount was failing all the time. I don't think roll-forward itself can corrupt
I got your concern, IMO, if mount fails, it will be better to let user
decide how to handle it.
If mount fails due to:
1) recovery, user can run fsck and/or try disable_roll_forward or
norecovery option in another mount;
2) -EINVAL caused by sanity, user can run fsck and retry mount.
3) -ENOMEM caused low memory in system, user can add more memory and retry
mount.
...
Thanks,
> the image more. Please report, if you have any issue on this.>
>>>
>>
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> How do you think about this? If you think it is okay, then I will fix the
>> sbi->extent_list corruption issue, by removing the retry logic. Otherwise,
>> I will fix it in the extent handling as you have suggested earlier.
>
> I'd like to keep retry logic, so could you please test what I suggested above?
>
> Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>>
>>>> In my case, the first boot up has a failure in recovery as below -
>>>>
>>>> F2FS-fs (mmcblk0p75): find_fsync_dnodes: detect looped node chain,
>>>> blkaddr:1979471, next:1979472
>>>> F2FS-fs (mmcblk0p75): Cannot recover all fsync data errno=-22
>>>>
>>>> But in the second attempt, retry will be set to false and because of that
>>>> recover_fsync_data() is skipped. This helped mount to be successful in
>>>> the second attempt.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Sahitya.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> How about adding a condition in f2fs_may_extent_tree() when adding
>>>>>>>>> extents?
>>>>>>>>> Likewise, if (shrinker is not registered) return false;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + shrink_dcache_sb(sb);
>>>>>>>>>> + evict_inodes(sb);
>>>>>>>>>> + f2fs_shrink_extent_tree(sbi, __count_extent_cache(sbi));
>>>>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block *sb, void *data, int
>>>>>>>>>> silent)
>>>>>>>>>> {
>>>>>>>>>> struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi;
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3402,6 +3412,8 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block
>>>>>>>>>> *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>>>>>>>>> * falls into an infinite loop in f2fs_sync_meta_pages().
>>>>>>>>>> */
>>>>>>>>>> truncate_inode_pages_final(META_MAPPING(sbi));
>>>>>>>>>> + /* cleanup recovery and quota inodes */
>>>>>>>>>> + f2fs_cleanup_inodes(sbi);
>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_unregister_sysfs(sbi);
>>>>>>>>>> free_root_inode:
>>>>>>>>>> dput(sb->s_root);
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3445,7 +3457,6 @@ static int f2fs_fill_super(struct super_block
>>>>>>>>>> *sb, void *data, int silent)
>>>>>>>>>> /* give only one another chance */
>>>>>>>>>> if (retry) {
>>>>>>>>>> retry = false;
>>>>>>>>>> - shrink_dcache_sb(sb);
>>>>>>>>>> goto try_onemore;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>> return err;
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Qualcomm India Private Limited, on behalf of Qualcomm Innovation
>>>>>>>>>> Center, Inc.
>>>>>>>>>> Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of Code Aurora Forum, a
>>>>>>>>>> Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>>>>>>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora
>>>>>>> Forum.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> .
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
>> The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
