Hi Philippe, Kernel 4.1 is really old one, so is there any chance to upgrade the kernel at least 4.14? You can find all the backports from below.
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs-stable.git On 09/16, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > Tnank you for your patch. > > I have applied it and also applied f2fs patches from 4.1.54 to my driver > which was in the 4.1.5 state, but I still get sometimes > > ------------[ cut here ]------------ > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2333 at fs/f2fs/node.c:1863 > flush_nat_entries+0x74c/0x7d8() > Modules linked in: > CPU: 0 PID: 2333 Comm: python3 Not tainted 4.1.15-02187-g7bc7275 #173 > Hardware name: Freescale i.MX6 Quad/DualLite (Device Tree) > [<80015f58>] (unwind_backtrace) from [<80012020>] (show_stack+0x10/0x14) > [<80012020>] (show_stack) from [<80733454>] (dump_stack+0x68/0xb8) > [<80733454>] (dump_stack) from [<8002b694>] (warn_slowpath_common+0x74/0xac) > [<8002b694>] (warn_slowpath_common) from [<8002b6e8>] > (warn_slowpath_null+0x1c/0x24) > [<8002b6e8>] (warn_slowpath_null) from [<8024fef8>] > (flush_nat_entries+0x74c/0x7d8) > [<8024fef8>] (flush_nat_entries) from [<80244b6c>] > (write_checkpoint+0x208/0xe68) > [<80244b6c>] (write_checkpoint) from [<80240138>] (f2fs_sync_fs+0x50/0x70) > [<80240138>] (f2fs_sync_fs) from [<8010436c>] (sync_fs_one_sb+0x28/0x2c) > [<8010436c>] (sync_fs_one_sb) from [<800df9e0>] (iterate_supers+0xac/0xd4) > [<800df9e0>] (iterate_supers) from [<80104414>] (sys_sync+0x48/0x98) > [<80104414>] (sys_sync) from [<8000f440>] (ret_fast_syscall+0x0/0x3c) > ---[ end trace a1c261161013ae57 ]--- > > even after a almost silent fsck : > > Info: Force to fix corruption > Info: Segments per section = 1 > Info: Sections per zone = 1 > Info: sector size = 512 > Info: total sectors = 7372800 (3600 MB) > Info: MKFS version > "" > Info: FSCK version > from "" > to "Linux version 4.1.15-02187-g7bc7275 (phdm@perdita) (gcc version 4.6.2 > 20110630 (prerelease) (Freescale MAD -- Linaro 2011.07 -- Built at 2011/08/10 > 09:20) ) #173 SMP PREEMPT Thu Sep 15 18:15:41 CEST 2022" > Info: superblock features = 0 : > Info: superblock encrypt level = 0, salt = 00000000000000000000000000000000 > Info: total FS sectors = 7372800 (3600 MB) > Info: CKPT version = c68 > Info: Corrupted valid nat_bits in checkpoint > Info: Write valid nat_bits in checkpoint > Info: checkpoint state = 284 : allow_nocrc nat_bits compacted_summary > sudden-power-off > [FSCK] Check node 1 / 97426 (0.00%) > random: nonblocking pool is initialized > [FSCK] Check node 9743 / 97426 (10.00%) > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1141) --> Regular: 0x2387d reset i_gc_failures > from 0x1 to 0x00 > [FSCK] Check node 19485 / 97426 (20.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 29227 / 97426 (30.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 38969 / 97426 (40.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 48711 / 97426 (50.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 58453 / 97426 (60.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 68195 / 97426 (70.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 77937 / 97426 (80.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 87679 / 97426 (90.00%) > [FSCK] Check node 97421 / 97426 (100.00%) > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1141) --> Regular: 0x23880 reset i_gc_failures > from 0x1 to 0x00 > [FIX] (fsck_chk_inode_blk:1141) --> Regular: 0x23898 reset i_gc_failures > from 0x1 to 0x00 > > [FSCK] Max image size: 3588 MB, Free space: 277 MB > [FSCK] Unreachable nat entries [Ok..] [0x0] > [FSCK] SIT valid block bitmap checking [Ok..] > [FSCK] Hard link checking for regular file [Ok..] [0xa61] > [FSCK] valid_block_count matching with CP [Ok..] [0xbccff] > [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (de lookup) [Ok..] [0x17c92] > [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (nat lookup) [Ok..] [0x17c92] > [FSCK] valid_inode_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x17ac4] > [FSCK] free segment_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x10b] > [FSCK] next block offset is free [Ok..] > [FSCK] fixing SIT types > [FSCK] other corrupted bugs [Ok..] > Info: Duplicate valid checkpoint to mirror position 1024 -> 512 > Info: Write valid nat_bits in checkpoint > Info: Write valid nat_bits in checkpoint > > Done: 47.791824 secs > > And here is the current fs/f2fs/node.c: > > /* flush dirty nats in nat entry set */ > list_for_each_entry_safe(ne, cur, &set->entry_list, list) { > struct f2fs_nat_entry *raw_ne; > nid_t nid = nat_get_nid(ne); > int offset; > > if (nat_get_blkaddr(ne) == NEW_ADDR) > continue; > > if (to_journal) { > offset = lookup_journal_in_cursum(sum, > NAT_JOURNAL, nid, 1); > LINE 1863 f2fs_bug_on(sbi, offset < 0); > raw_ne = &nat_in_journal(sum, offset); > nid_in_journal(sum, offset) = cpu_to_le32(nid); > } else { > raw_ne = &nat_blk->entries[nid - start_nid]; > } > raw_nat_from_node_info(raw_ne, &ne->ni); > > down_write(&NM_I(sbi)->nat_tree_lock); > nat_reset_flag(ne); > __clear_nat_cache_dirty(NM_I(sbi), ne); > up_write(&NM_I(sbi)->nat_tree_lock); > > if (nat_get_blkaddr(ne) == NULL_ADDR) > add_free_nid(sbi, nid, false); > } > > Best Regards > > Philippe > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2022 at 03:10:04PM +0800, Wu Bo wrote: > > On 2022/9/14 16:08, Philippe De Muyter wrote: > > > > > Hello Wu Bo, > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 14, 2022 at 12:04:23PM +0800, Wu Bo wrote: > > >> As Philippe De Muyter reported: > > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20220913224908.GA25100@172.21.0.10/T/#u > > >> > > >> The warning log showed that when finding a new space for nat the journal > > >> space turned out to be full. This because the journal_rwsem is not > > >> locked before the journal space checking. The journal space may become > > >> full just after we check it. > > >> > > >> Reported-by: Philippe De Muyter <p...@macq.eu> > > >> Signed-off-by: Wu Bo <bo...@vivo.com> > > >> --- > > >> fs/f2fs/node.c | 6 +++--- > > >> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 10 +++++----- > > >> 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-) > > >> > > > > > > Thank you for your patch. > > > > > > Unfortunately it does not apply to my 4.1.15 or newer 4.1.y sources, > > > and I do not have the knowledge of f2fs internals to modify your > > > patch myself. E.g. 4.1.y lacks the '.journal' field in the > > > 'struct curseg_info'. > > > > > > Could you make a version suitable for 4.1.y ? > > > > My patch is just try to fix the 'offset < 0' warning you have meet. The > > probability of this is very low. > > > > > > > > To the fsck fixed report you found when doing fsck.f2fs, 'reset > > i_gc_failures' log seems normal. And 'Unreachable nat entries' maybe > > caused by the 'offset < 0' exception. > > > > If your filesystem doesn't report fsck failures after these 2 cases, I > > think you don't need to worry about it too much. > > > > Here is the patch for v4.1.y: > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c > > index 8ab0cf1930bd..fc4d87a1ddf0 100644 > > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c > > @@ -1837,12 +1837,12 @@ static void __flush_nat_entry_set(struct > > f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > > * #1, flush nat entries to journal in current hot data summary > > block. > > * #2, flush nat entries to nat page. > > */ > > + mutex_lock(&curseg->curseg_mutex); > > if (!__has_cursum_space(sum, set->entry_cnt, NAT_JOURNAL)) > > to_journal = false; > > > > - if (to_journal) { > > - mutex_lock(&curseg->curseg_mutex); > > - } else { > > + if (!to_journal) { > > + mutex_unlock(&curseg->curseg_mutex); > > page = get_next_nat_page(sbi, start_nid); > > nat_blk = page_address(page); > > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, !nat_blk); _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
