>On 2025/3/28 15:25, yohan.joung wrote:
>>> On 2025/3/28 11:40, yohan.joung wrote:
>>>>> From: Chao Yu <c...@kernel.org>
>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 10:48 PM
>>>>> To: 정요한(JOUNG YOHAN) Mobile AE <yohan.jo...@sk.com>; Yohan Joung
>>>>> <jyh...@gmail.com>; jaeg...@kernel.org; daeh...@gmail.com
>>>>> Cc: c...@kernel.org; linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; linux-
>>>>> ker...@vger.kernel.org; 김필현(KIM PILHYUN) Mobile AE
>>>>> <pilhyun....@sk.com>
>>>>> Subject: [External Mail] Re: [External Mail] Re: [External Mail] Re:
>>>>> [PATCH] f2fs: prevent the current section from being selected as a
>>>>> victim during garbage collection
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2025/3/27 16:00, yohan.jo...@sk.com wrote:
>>>>>>> From: Chao Yu <c...@kernel.org>
>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 4:30 PM
>>>>>>> To: 정요한(JOUNG YOHAN) Mobile AE <yohan.jo...@sk.com>; Yohan Joung
>>>>>>> <jyh...@gmail.com>; jaeg...@kernel.org; daeh...@gmail.com
>>>>>>> Cc: c...@kernel.org; linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net;
>>>>>>> linux- ker...@vger.kernel.org; 김필현(KIM PILHYUN) Mobile AE
>>>>>>> <pilhyun....@sk.com>
>>>>>>> Subject: [External Mail] Re: [External Mail] Re: [PATCH] f2fs:
>>>>>>> prevent the current section from being selected as a victim
>>>>>>> during garbage collection
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 3/27/25 14:43, yohan.jo...@sk.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> From: Chao Yu <c...@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2025 3:02 PM
>>>>>>>>> To: Yohan Joung <jyh...@gmail.com>; jaeg...@kernel.org;
>>>>>>>>> daeh...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> Cc: c...@kernel.org; linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net;
>>>>>>>>> linux- ker...@vger.kernel.org; 정요한(JOUNG YOHAN) Mobile AE
>>>>>>>>> <yohan.jo...@sk.com>
>>>>>>>>> Subject: [External Mail] Re: [PATCH] f2fs: prevent the current
>>>>>>>>> section from being selected as a victim during garbage
>>>>>>>>> collection
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 3/26/25 22:14, Yohan Joung wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> When selecting a victim using next_victim_seg in a large
>>>>>>>>>> section, the selected section might already have been cleared
>>>>>>>>>> and designated as the new current section, making it actively
>>>>>>>>>> in
>>> use.
>>>>>>>>>> This behavior causes inconsistency between the SIT and SSA.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi, does this fix your issue?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is an issue that arises when dividing a large section into
>>>>>>>> segments for garbage collection.
>>>>>>>> caused by the background GC (garbage collection) thread in large
>>>>>>>> section
>>>>>>>> f2fs_gc(victim_section) ->
>>>>>>>> f2fs_clear_prefree_segments(victim_section)->
>>>>>>>> cursec(victim_section) -> f2fs_gc(victim_section by
>>>>>>>> next_victim_seg)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't get it, why f2fs_get_victim() will return section which
>>>>>>> is used by curseg? It should be avoided by checking w/
>sec_usage_check().
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Or we missed to check gcing section which next_victim_seg points
>>>>>>> to during get_new_segment()?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can this happen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>> - bggc selects sec #0
>>>>>>> - next_victim_seg: seg #0
>>>>>>> - migrate seg #0 and stop
>>>>>>> - next_victim_seg: seg #1
>>>>>>> - checkpoint, set sec #0 free if sec #0 has no valid blocks
>>>>>>> - allocate seg #0 in sec #0 for curseg
>>>>>>> - curseg moves to seg #1 after allocation
>>>>>>> - bggc tries to migrate seg #1
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> That's correct
>>>>>> In f2fs_get_victim, we use next_victim_seg to directly jump to
>>>>>> got_result, thereby bypassing sec_usage_check What do you think
>>>>>> about this change?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> @@ -850,15 +850,20 @@ int f2fs_get_victim(struct f2fs_sb_info
>>>>>> *sbi,
>>>>> unsigned int *result,
>>>>>> p.min_segno = sbi->next_victim_seg[BG_GC];
>>>>>> *result = p.min_segno;
>>>>>> sbi->next_victim_seg[BG_GC] = NULL_SEGNO;
>>>>>> - goto got_result;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> if (gc_type == FG_GC &&
>>>>>> sbi->next_victim_seg[FG_GC] !=
>>>>>> NULL_SEGNO)
>{
>>>>>> p.min_segno = sbi->next_victim_seg[FG_GC];
>>>>>> *result = p.min_segno;
>>>>>> sbi->next_victim_seg[FG_GC] = NULL_SEGNO;
>>>>>> - goto got_result;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + secno = GET_SEC_FROM_SEG(sbi, segno);
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (sec_usage_check(sbi, secno))
>>>>>> + goto next;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + goto got_result;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> But still allocator can assign this segment after sec_usage_check()
>>>>> in race condition, right?
>>>> Since the BG GC using next_victim takes place after the SIT update
>>>> in do_checkpoint, it seems unlikely that a race condition with
>>> sec_usage_check will occur.
>>>
>>> I mean this:
>>>
>>> - gc_thread
>>> - f2fs_gc
>>> - f2fs_get_victim
>>> - sec_usage_check --- segno #1 is not used in any cursegs
>>> - f2fs_allocate_data_block
>>> - new_curseg
>>> - get_new_segment find segno #1
>>>
>>> - do_garbage_collect
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>
>> do_checkpoint sec0 free
>> If sec0 is not freed, then
>segno1 within sec0 cannot be
>> allocated
>> - gc_thread
>> - f2fs_gc
>> - f2fs_get_victim
>> - sec_usage_check --- segno #1 is not used in any cursegs (but sec0
>is already used)
>> -
>> f2fs_allocate_data_block
>> - new_curseg
>> - get_new_segment find
>segno #1
>>
>> - do_garbage_collect
>>
>> I appreciate your patch, it is under testing.
>> but I'm wondering if there's a risk of a race condition in this
>> situation
>
>Oh, yes, I may missed that get_new_segment can return a free segment in
>partial used section.
>
>So what do you think of this?
>- check CURSEG() in do_garbage_collect() and get_victim()
>- reset next_victim_seg[] in get_new_segment() and __set_test_and_free()
>during checkpoint.
>
>Thanks,
How about using victim_secmap?
gc_thread
mutex_lock(&DIRTY_I(sbi)->seglist_lock);
__set_test_and_free
check cur section next_victim clear
mutex_unlock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock);
mutex_lock(&dirty->seglist_lock);
f2fs_get_victim
mutex_unlock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock);
static inline void __set_test_and_free(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
if (next >= start_segno + usable_segs) {
if (test_and_clear_bit(secno, free_i->free_secmap))
free_i->free_sections++;
+
+ if (test_and_clear_bit(secno, dirty_i->victim_secmap))
+ sbi->next_victim_seg[BG_GC] = NULL_SEGNO;
}
}
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> IMO, we can clear next_victim_seg[] once section is free in
>>>>> __set_test_and_free()? something like this:
>>>> I will test it according to your suggestion.
>>>> If there are no issues, can I submit it again with the patch?
>>>> Thanks
>>>>>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/f2fs/segment.h | 13 ++++++++++---
>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h index
>>>>> 0465dc00b349..826e37999085 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
>>>>> @@ -473,9 +473,16 @@ static inline void __set_test_and_free(struct
>>>>> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>> goto skip_free;
>>>>> next = find_next_bit(free_i->free_segmap,
>>>>> start_segno + SEGS_PER_SEC(sbi),
>start_segno);
>>>>> - if (next >= start_segno + usable_segs) {
>>>>> - if (test_and_clear_bit(secno, free_i->free_secmap))
>>>>> - free_i->free_sections++;
>>>>> + if ((next >= start_segno + usable_segs) &&
>>>>> + test_and_clear_bit(secno, free_i->free_secmap)) {
>>>>> + free_i->free_sections++;
>>>>> +
>>>>> + if (GET_SEC_FROM_SEG(sbi->next_victim_seg[BG_GC]) ==
>>>>> + secno)
>>>>> + sbi->next_victim_seg[BG_GC] = NULL_SEGNO;
>>>>> + if (GET_SEC_FROM_SEG(sbi->next_victim_seg[FG_GC]) ==
>>>>> + secno)
>>>>> + sbi->next_victim_seg[FG_GC] = NULL_SEGNO;
>>>>> }
>>>>> }
>>>>> skip_free:
>>>>> --
>>>>> 2.40.1
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Because the call stack is different, I think that in order to
>>>>>>>> handle everything at once, we need to address it within
>>>>>>>> do_garbage_collect, or otherwise include it on both sides.
>>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [30146.337471][ T1300] F2FS-fs (dm-54): Inconsistent segment
>>>>>>>> (70961) type [0, 1] in SSA and SIT [30146.346151][ T1300] Call
>trace:
>>>>>>>> [30146.346152][ T1300] dump_backtrace+0xe8/0x10c
>>>>>>>> [30146.346157][ T1300] show_stack+0x18/0x28 [30146.346158][
>>>>>>>> T1300] dump_stack_lvl+0x50/0x6c [30146.346161][ T1300]
>>>>>>>> dump_stack+0x18/0x28 [30146.346162][ T1300]
>>>>>>>> f2fs_stop_checkpoint+0x1c/0x3c [30146.346165][ T1300]
>>>>>>>> do_garbage_collect+0x41c/0x271c [30146.346167][ T1300]
>>>>>>>> f2fs_gc+0x27c/0x828 [30146.346168][ T1300]
>>>>>>>> gc_thread_func+0x290/0x88c [30146.346169][ T1300]
>>>>>>>> kthread+0x11c/0x164 [30146.346172][ T1300]
>>>>>>>> ret_from_fork+0x10/0x20
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> struct curseg_info : 0xffffff803f95e800 {
>>>>>>>> segno : 0x11531 : 70961
>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> struct f2fs_sb_info : 0xffffff8811d12000 {
>>>>>>>> next_victim_seg[0] : 0x11531 : 70961 }
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-f2fs-devel/20250325080646.3291947
>>>>>>>>> -2
>>>>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>>> c...@kernel.org
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yohan Joung <yohan.jo...@sk.com>
>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 4 ++++
>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c index
>>>>>>>>>> 2b8f9239bede..4b5d18e395eb 100644
>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>>>>>>>> @@ -1926,6 +1926,10 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>>>>>>> struct
>>>>>>>>> f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
>>>>>>>>>> goto stop;
>>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> + if (__is_large_section(sbi) &&
>>>>>>>>>> + IS_CURSEC(sbi, GET_SEC_FROM_SEG(sbi, segno)))
>>>>>>>>>> + goto stop;
>>>>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>>>>> seg_freed = do_garbage_collect(sbi, segno, &gc_list, gc_type,
>>>>>>>>>> gc_control->should_migrate_blocks,
>>>>>>>>>> gc_control->one_time);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
