On 2019/5/28 11:30, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Sahitya, > > On 2019/5/28 11:17, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Sahitya, >> >> On 2019/5/28 11:05, Sahitya Tummala wrote: >>> Hi Chao, >>> >>> On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 09:23:15AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> Hi Sahitya, >>>> >>>> On 2019/5/27 21:10, Sahitya Tummala wrote: >>>>> Ratelimit the recovery logs, which are expected in case >>>>> of sudden power down and which could result into too >>>>> many prints. >>>> >>>> FYI >>>> >>>> https://lore.kernel.org/patchwork/patch/973837/ >>>> >>>> IMO, we need those logs to provide evidence during trouble-shooting of >>>> file data >>>> corruption or file missing problem... >>>> >>> In one of the logs, I have noticed there were ~400 recovery prints in the >> >> I think its order of magnitudes is not such bad, if there is redundant logs >> such >> as the one in do_recover_data(), we can improve it. >> >>> kernel bootup. I noticed your patch above and with that now we can always >>> get >>> the error returned by f2fs_recover_fsync_data(), which should be good enough >>> for knowing the status of recovered files I thought. Do you think we need >>> individually each file status as well? >> >> Yes, I think so, we need them for the detailed info. :) > > I personally agree with Chao's suggestion as well. > > Sometimes huawei got stuck into rare potential f2fs stability issues, > which is hard to say whether it is a clearly hardware or software issues. > > These messages is used as some evidences for us to guess what happened. > it'd better to handle carefully...
Correct, thanks for the detailed explanation. :) Thanks, > > Thanks, > Gao Xiang > >> >> Thanks, >> >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> So I suggest we can keep log as it is in recover_dentry/recover_inode, and >>>> for >>>> the log in do_recover_data, we can record recovery info [isize_kept, >>>> recovered_count, err ...] into struct fsync_inode_entry, and print them in >>>> batch, how do you think? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <[email protected]> >>>>> --- >>>>> v2: >>>>> - fix minor formatting and add new line for printk >>>>> >>>>> fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 18 +++++++++--------- >>>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-) >>>>> >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c >>>>> index e04f82b..60d7652 100644 >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c >>>>> @@ -188,8 +188,8 @@ static int recover_dentry(struct inode *inode, struct >>>>> page *ipage, >>>>> name = "<encrypted>"; >>>>> else >>>>> name = raw_inode->i_name; >>>>> - f2fs_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_NOTICE, >>>>> - "%s: ino = %x, name = %s, dir = %lx, err = %d", >>>>> + printk_ratelimited(KERN_NOTICE >>>>> + "%s: ino = %x, name = %s, dir = %lx, err = %d\n", >>>>> __func__, ino_of_node(ipage), name, >>>>> IS_ERR(dir) ? 0 : dir->i_ino, err); >>>>> return err; >>>>> @@ -292,8 +292,8 @@ static int recover_inode(struct inode *inode, struct >>>>> page *page) >>>>> else >>>>> name = F2FS_INODE(page)->i_name; >>>>> >>>>> - f2fs_msg(inode->i_sb, KERN_NOTICE, >>>>> - "recover_inode: ino = %x, name = %s, inline = %x", >>>>> + printk_ratelimited(KERN_NOTICE >>>>> + "recover_inode: ino = %x, name = %s, inline = %x\n", >>>>> ino_of_node(page), name, raw->i_inline); >>>>> return 0; >>>>> } >>>>> @@ -642,11 +642,11 @@ static int do_recover_data(struct f2fs_sb_info >>>>> *sbi, struct inode *inode, >>>>> err: >>>>> f2fs_put_dnode(&dn); >>>>> out: >>>>> - f2fs_msg(sbi->sb, KERN_NOTICE, >>>>> - "recover_data: ino = %lx (i_size: %s) recovered = %d, err = %d", >>>>> - inode->i_ino, >>>>> - file_keep_isize(inode) ? "keep" : "recover", >>>>> - recovered, err); >>>>> + printk_ratelimited(KERN_NOTICE >>>>> + "recover_data: ino = %lx (i_size: %s) recovered = %d, >>>>> err = %d\n", >>>>> + inode->i_ino, >>>>> + file_keep_isize(inode) ? "keep" : "recover", >>>>> + recovered, err); >>>>> return err; >>>>> } >>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >> > . >
