On 6/22/2026 9:46 AM, Chao Yu wrote:
[Some people who received this message don't often get email from
[email protected]. Learn why this is important at https://aka.ms/
LearnAboutSenderIdentification ]
[ EXTERNAL EMAIL ]
On 6/20/26 17:34, Jiucheng Xu via B4 Relay wrote:
From: Jiucheng Xu <[email protected]>
When continuous write operations occur in the system, BG GC fails to
work. This leads to large dirty_segments and small free_segments. If
fallocate() is performed on a pinned file with the allocated space
exceeding the free_segment, FG_GC reclamation fails.
The reason is that the file corresponding to the block in the victim is
pinned, causing gc_data_segment() to fail. Since the condition sec_freed
Jiucheng,
pinned file should be aligned to section size, why there is fragmented
blocks
of pinfile locates in dirty sections?
< gc_control->nr_free_secs isn't satisfied, GC stops, resulting in the
failure of f2fs_fallocate() allocation.
Setting gc_control->nr_free_secs = 1 make FG GC continue searching
for new victim.
Maybe we can try this instead of changing f2fs_expand_inode_data() logic:
1. call fggc via ioctl or trigger urgent gc via sysfs
2. fallocate on pinfile, goto 1) if it failed
But, anyway, I suspect it's risk, if there is no normal dirty section,
FGGC will try to call f2fs_unpin_all_sections(), then migrate dirty section
which has pinned blocks, that will cause more damage.
Can you please figure out why pinfile is fragmented first...
Hi Chao,
Thanks for your feedback. I just do a test to simulate the Android OTA
createCowImage failed when dirty_segments is too large.
Simple reproduction steps:
1. In my case, dirty_segments=969, free_segments=96, free space = 1.7G,
section:segment = 1:1
2. touch a.bin
3. f2fs_io pinfile set a.bin
4. fallocate -l 1.5G a.bin
And f2fs_fallocate() returns -11.
Although the urgent mode work fine, but it is not very convenient to
control since AOPS has a great deal of code that calls fallocate.
I have tried 5 times to fallocate(), but GC always selects the same
victim segno. So I think it is an issue.
The trace:
f2fs_get_victim: dev = (254,0), type = No TYPE, policy = (Foreground GC,
LFS-mode, Greedy), victim = 624, cost = 19...
f2fs_gc_end: dev = (254,0), ret = 0, seg_freed = 0, sec_freed = 0, nodes
= 117, dents = 0, imeta = 98, free_sec:50, free_seg:50, rsv_seg:47,
prefree_seg:47
I dump the failed victim segno, block offset in segment and related
inode ino:
do_garbage_collect: ino=33902 segno=624 off=132
The dump of pinfile 33902 info:
main_blkaddr [0x 2600 : 9728]
i_inline [0x 61 : 97]
inline shows the file is pinned (0x60)
i_addr[0x9] [0x 2f7b2 : 194482]
i_addr[0xa] [0x 2f7b3 : 194483]
i_addr[0xb] [0x 2f7b4 : 194484]
...
i_addr[0x1d] [0x 2f7c6 : 194502]
i_addr[0x1e] [0x 465af : 288175]
i_addr[0x1f] [0x 465b0 : 288176]
...
i_addr[0x21] [0x 465b2 : 288178]
i_addr[0x22] [0x 5046d : 328813]
i_addr[0x23] [0x 5046e : 328814]
i_addr[0x24] [0x 505b6 : 329142]
i_addr[0x25] [0x 505b7 : 329143]
i_addr[0x26] [0x 505b8 : 329144]
i_addr[0x27] [0x 50684 : 329348]
i_addr[0x28] [0x 50685 : 329349]
The file is created by logcat,and looks like indeed fragmented.
Calculate the block address:
624 * 512 + 132 + 9728(main_blkaddr) = 329348
So the i_addr[0x27] = 329348 is the failed block.
Regarding "why the pinfile is fragmented" you said, we use v5.15 +
android U. Is it that v5.15 lacks some patches for special handling of
pinfiles?
Thanks,
Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Jiucheng Xu <[email protected]>
---
fs/f2fs/file.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
index
8acdd94272a0ced448e0ba21635d702cfec10682..3e49a73bbf3a184a314e97bff9509a66c27eac00 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
@@ -1883,7 +1883,7 @@ static int f2fs_expand_inode_data(struct inode
*inode, loff_t offset,
.init_gc_type = FG_GC,
.should_migrate_blocks = false,
.err_gc_skipped = true,
- .nr_free_secs = 0 };
+ .nr_free_secs = 1 };
pgoff_t pg_start, pg_end;
loff_t new_size;
loff_t off_end;
---
base-commit: b51f606aa323d553d786ed681a213f134dc688d6
change-id: 20260620-origin-dev-99cdccc83800
Best regards,
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
