On 09/09, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2019/9/9 15:58, Chao Yu wrote: > > On 2019/9/9 15:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >> On 09/07, Chao Yu wrote: > >>> On 2019-9-7 7:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>> On 09/06, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>> If inode is newly created, inode page may not synchronize with inode > >>>>> cache, > >>>>> so fields like .i_inline or .i_extra_isize could be wrong, in below call > >>>>> path, we may access such wrong fields, result in failing to migrate > >>>>> valid > >>>>> target block. > >>>> > >>>> If data is valid, how can we get new inode page? > >> > >> Let me rephrase the question. If inode is newly created, is this data block > >> really valid to move in GC? > > > > I guess it's valid, let double check that. > > We can see inode page: > > - f2fs_create > - f2fs_add_link > - f2fs_add_dentry > - f2fs_init_inode_metadata > - f2fs_add_inline_entry > - ipage = f2fs_new_inode_page > - f2fs_put_page(ipage) <---- after this
Can you print out how many block was assigned to this inode? > > > > >> > >>> > >>> is_alive() > >>> { > >>> ... > >>> node_page = f2fs_get_node_page(sbi, nid); <--- inode page > >> > >> Aren't we seeing the below version warnings? > >> > >> if (sum->version != dni->version) { > >> f2fs_warn(sbi, "%s: valid data with mismatched node version.", > >> __func__); > >> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK); > >> } > > The version of summary and dni are all zero. Then, this node was allocated and removed without being flushed. > > summary nid: 613, ofs: 111, ver: 0 > blkaddr 2436 (blkaddr in node 0) > expect: seg 10, ofs_in_seg: 54 > real: seg 4294967295, ofs_in_seg: 0 > ofs: 54, 0 > node info ino:613, nid:613, nofs:0 > ofs_in_addr: 0 > > Thanks, > > >> > >>> > >>> source_blkaddr = datablock_addr(NULL, node_page, ofs_in_node); > >> > >> So, we're getting this? Does this incur infinite loop in GC? > >> > >> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, SIT_I(sbi)->invalid_segmap)) { > >> f2fs_err(sbi, "mismatched blkaddr %u (source_blkaddr %u) in seg %u\n", > >> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, 1); > >> } > > > > Yes, I only get this with generic/269, rather than "valid data with > > mismatched > > node version.". Was this block moved as valid? In either way, is_alive() returns false, no? How about checking i_blocks to detect the page is initialized in is_alive()? > > > > With this patch, generic/269 won't panic again. > > > > Thanks, > > > >> > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> datablock_addr() > >>> { > >>> ... > >>> base = offset_in_addr(&raw_node->i); <--- the base could be wrong here > >>> due to > >>> accessing uninitialized .i_inline of raw_node->i. > >>> ... > >>> } > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>>> - is_alive > >>>>> - datablock_addr > >>>>> - offset_in_addr > >>>>> > >>>>> Fixes: 7a2af766af15 ("f2fs: enhance on-disk inode structure > >>>>> scalability") > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> > >>>>> --- > >>>>> fs/f2fs/dir.c | 3 +++ > >>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+) > >>>>> > >>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/dir.c b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> index 765f13354d3f..b1840852967e 100644 > >>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/dir.c > >>>>> @@ -479,6 +479,9 @@ struct page *f2fs_init_inode_metadata(struct inode > >>>>> *inode, struct inode *dir, > >>>>> if (IS_ERR(page)) > >>>>> return page; > >>>>> > >>>>> + /* synchronize inode page's data from inode cache */ > >>>>> + f2fs_update_inode(inode, page); > >>>>> + > >>>>> if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>>> /* in order to handle error case */ > >>>>> get_page(page); > >>>>> -- > >>>>> 2.18.0.rc1 > >> . > >>