Ping,
On 2018/6/26 16:34, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/6/26 13:12, Yunlei He wrote:
>> Now, we depend on fsck to ensure quota file data is ok,
>> so we scan whole partition if checkpoint without umount
>> flag. It's same for quota off error case, which may make
>> quota file data inconsistent.
>>
>>
Let's reset i_gc_failures to zero when we unset pinned state for file.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
---
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 ed5c9b0e0d0c..22c83da0d5e2 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
This patch synchronize f2fs_inode structure from kernel side, in
addition, it adds to check .i_gc_failures and do resetting in fsck.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
---
fsck/dir.c | 5 -
fsck/fsck.c| 16
include/f2fs_fs.h | 8 +++-
mkfs/f2fs_format.c | 2 +-
Print block address of unreachable node id in fsck_verify() for better
debugging.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
---
fsck/fsck.c | 6 +-
1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/fsck/fsck.c b/fsck/fsck.c
index bb1da0305f2c..20a569228516 100644
--- a/fsck/fsck.c
+++ b/fsck/fsck.c
On 2018/7/29 9:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
>> f2fs recovery flow is relying on dnode block link list, it means fsynced
>> file recovery depends on previous dnode's persistence in the list, so
>> during fsync() we should wait on all regular inode's dnode writebacked
>> before
On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/29 10:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Ping,
> >
> > Please check dev-test.
>
> I still can't find this patch in last dev-test...
Oh, I recalled what happened on this patch. I didn't merge this, since fault
injection test was failed
On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/29 10:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/7/29 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/27 18:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Thread A
On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
> f2fs recovery flow is relying on dnode block link list, it means fsynced
> file recovery depends on previous dnode's persistence in the list, so
> during fsync() we should wait on all regular inode's dnode writebacked
> before issuing flush.
>
> By this way, we can
On 2018/7/29 10:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2018/7/29 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2018/7/27 18:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Thread A Background GC
>> - f2fs_zero_range
>>
On 2018/7/29 10:06, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Ping,
>
> Please check dev-test.
I still can't find this patch in last dev-test...
Thanks,
>
>>
>> On 2018/6/26 16:34, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2018/6/26 13:12, Yunlei He wrote:
Now, we depend on fsck to ensure quota file
From: Chao Yu
PG_checked flag will be set on data page during GC, later, we can
recognize such page by the flag and migrate page to cold segment.
But previously, we don't clear this flag when invalidating data page,
after page redirtying, we will write it into wrong log.
Let's clear PG_checked
On 07/26, Sotirios-Efstathios Maneas wrote:
> Fix the checkpoint version written to the footer of the root's inode.
What does this patch to fix?
The checkpoint_ver in footer is to detect the node is recoverable or not during
roll-forward recovery. So, root_inode doesn't require to have the exact
On 07/26, Sotirios-Efstathios Maneas wrote:
> Fixed typos in several printed messages.
Thanks, merged.
>
> ---
> mkfs/f2fs_format.c | 18 +-
> mkfs/f2fs_format_main.c | 8
> 2 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format.c
On 07/26, Sotirios-Efstathios Maneas wrote:
> Added a missing error check statement while allocating memory to write the
> super block.
>
> ---
> mkfs/f2fs_format.c | 4
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/mkfs/f2fs_format.c b/mkfs/f2fs_format.c
> index 1a2deae..491a9da
On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> We need to drop PG_checked flag on page as well when we clear PG_uptodate
> flag, in order to avoid treating the page as GCing one later.
What do you mean "treating the page as GCing one"?
>
> Signed-off-by: Weichao Guo
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu
> ---
>
On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/29 10:00, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> We need to drop PG_checked flag on page as well when we clear PG_uptodate
> >> flag, in order to avoid treating the page as GCing one later.
> >
> > What do you mean "treating the page as GCing
On 2018/7/29 10:44, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2018/7/29 10:00, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
We need to drop PG_checked flag on page as well when we clear PG_uptodate
flag, in order to avoid treating the page as GCing one later.
>>>
>>> What do
On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/27 17:17, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/23, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/7/23 21:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/16, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/15 9:11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > In order to prevent abusing atomic writes by abnormal users, we've
> >
On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
> Ping,
Please check dev-test.
>
> On 2018/6/26 16:34, Chao Yu wrote:
> > On 2018/6/26 13:12, Yunlei He wrote:
> >> Now, we depend on fsck to ensure quota file data is ok,
> >> so we scan whole partition if checkpoint without umount
> >> flag. It's same for quota off
On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/27 18:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Thread A Background GC
> >> - f2fs_zero_range
> >> - truncate_pagecache_range
> >>- gc_data_segment
> >>
On 2018/7/29 10:00, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>> We need to drop PG_checked flag on page as well when we clear PG_uptodate
>> flag, in order to avoid treating the page as GCing one later.
>
> What do you mean "treating the page as GCing one"?
I mean if PG_checked flag in page
On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/29 9:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> f2fs recovery flow is relying on dnode block link list, it means fsynced
> >> file recovery depends on previous dnode's persistence in the list, so
> >> during fsync() we should wait on all regular
On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2018/7/29 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2018/7/27 18:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> Thread A Background GC
> - f2fs_zero_range
> - truncate_pagecache_range
>
On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
> This patch fixs to do sanity check with user_block_count.
>
> - Overview
> Divide zero in utilization when mount() a corrupted f2fs image
>
> - Reproduce (4.18 upstream kernel)
>
> - Kernel message
> [ 564.099503] F2FS-fs (loop0): invalid crc value
> [ 564.101991]
On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
> Thread A Background GC
> - f2fs_setattr isize to 0
> - truncate_setsize
> - gc_data_segment
>- f2fs_get_read_data_page page #0
>
On 2018/7/29 10:49, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2018/7/29 9:33, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/28, Chao Yu wrote:
f2fs recovery flow is relying on dnode block link list, it means fsynced
file recovery depends on previous dnode's persistence in the list, so
On 2018/7/29 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2018/7/27 18:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/26, Chao Yu wrote:
Thread A Background GC
- f2fs_zero_range
- truncate_pagecache_range
-
27 matches
Mail list logo
