Re: [f2fs-dev] [RFC PATCH v2] fsck.f2fs: write checkpoint out of place first

Hi Jaegeuk, Is your test using a kernel include some unstable patches like "f2fs: guarantee journalled quota data by checkpoint"? I am planing to reproduce the problem with dev branch. Is that OK? Any hints for reproducing? Thank, Weichao On 2018/8/18 2:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Weichao, >

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] fsck.f2fs: write checkpoint out of place first

On 2018/7/30 14:41, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Weichao, > > On 2018/7/30 18:46, Weichao Guo wrote: > > Could you check and adjust your server's date, it looks like we are receiving > patch from future. ;) > Oh, I didn't notice that. It will not happen any more. Thanks, >> We may encounter both

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH RFC] fsck.f2fs: write checkpoint out of place first

On 2018/7/26 19:52, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/7/24 23:28, Weichao Guo wrote: >> We may encounter both checkpoints invalid in such a case: >> 1. write checkpoint A, B, C; >> 2. sudden power-cut during write checkpoint D; >> 3. fsck changes the total block count of checkpoint C; >> 4. sudden

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v4] f2fs: support in-memory inode checksum when checking consistency

On 2018/3/13 16:49, Sahitya Tummala wrote: > On Thu, Mar 08, 2018 at 05:10:40AM +0800, Weichao Guo wrote: >> @@ -159,8 +162,12 @@ bool f2fs_inode_chksum_verify(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >> struct page *page) >> struct f2fs_inode *ri; >> __u32 provided, calculated; >> >> +#ifdef

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v5] f2fs: support in-memory inode checksum when checking consistency

On 2018/3/9 13:49, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/3/9 5:31, Weichao Guo wrote: >> Only enable in-memory inode checksum to protect metadata blocks >> from in-memory scribbles when checking consistency, which has no >> performance requirements. > > Signed-off-by? Sorry for this mistake. I will send a

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v4] f2fs: support in-memory inode checksum when checking consistency

Hi Chao, On 2018/3/8 17:11, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Weichao, > > On 2018/3/8 15:56, guoweichao wrote: >> Hi Chao, >> >> On 2018/3/8 14:15, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2018/3/8 5:10, Weichao Guo wrote: >>>> Only enable in-memory inode checksum to protect me

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: in-memory inode checksum when checking consistency

On 2018/2/28 17:58, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/2/27 3:28, Weichao Guo wrote: >> Enable in-memory inode checksum to protect metadata blocks >> from in-memory scribbles only when checking consistency with >> no performance requirements. >> >> Signed-off-by: Weichao Guo >> ---

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: report cp block corrupted & add a backup of cp2

Hi Jaegeuk, On 2018/2/28 12:57, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 02/26, Weichao Guo wrote: >> There is a potential inconsistent metadata case due to a cp block >> crc invalid in the latest checkpoint caused by hardware issues: >> 1) write nodes into segment x; >> 2) write checkpoint A; >> 3) remove nodes

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: report cp block corrupted

On 2018/2/13 2:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 02/12, guoweichao wrote: >> >> >> On 2018/2/12 11:40, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 02/12, guoweichao wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2018/2/12 10:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>> On 02/

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: report cp block corrupted

On 2018/2/12 11:40, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 02/12, guoweichao wrote: >> >> >> On 2018/2/12 10:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 02/12, guoweichao wrote: >>>> Hi Jaegeuk, >>>> >>>> On 2018/2/12 7:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>&

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: report cp block corrupted

On 2018/2/12 10:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 02/12, guoweichao wrote: >> Hi Jaegeuk, >> >> On 2018/2/12 7:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 02/06, Weichao Guo wrote: >>>> There is a potential inconsistent metadata case due to a cp block >>>> c

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: report cp block corrupted

Hi Jaegeuk, On 2018/2/12 7:32, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 02/06, Weichao Guo wrote: >> There is a potential inconsistent metadata case due to a cp block >> crc invalid in the latest checkpoint caused by hardware issues: >> 1) write nodes into segment x; >> 2) write checkpoint A; >> 3) remove nodes

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: report cp block corrupted

On 2018/2/5 15:41, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/2/5 18:18, Weichao Guo wrote: >> There is a potential inconsistent metadata case due to a cp block >> crc invalid in the latest checkpoint caused by hardware issues: >> 1) write nodes into segment x; >> 2) write checkpoint A; >> 3) remove nodes in

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: no need to flush NAT bits if no enough space

On 2018/2/5 15:42, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/2/5 22:30, Weichao Guo wrote: >> NAT bits are saved at spare space in CP pack. Flushed NAT bits >> may be overwritten by the CP pack if there is no enough space >> for NAT bits. And NAT bits will be obsolesced at next mount time >> if crc|cp_ver not

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: no need to flush NAT bits if no enough space

On 2018/2/5 22:30, Weichao Guo wrote: > NAT bits are saved at spare space in CP pack. Flushed NAT bits > may be overwritten by the CP pack if there is no enough space > for NAT bits. And NAT bits will be obsolesced at next mount time Sorry, there is a typo here. 'obsolesced' should be obsolete.

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: report cp block corrupted

Hi Chao, On 2018/2/4 23:16, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/2/3 20:12, Weichao Guo wrote: >> There is a potential inconsistent metadata case due to a cp block >> crc invalid in the latest checkpoint caused by hardware issues: >> 1) write nodes into segment x; >> 2) write checkpoint A; >> 3) remove nodes

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH RFC] f2fs: add PRE2 to mark segments free to one checkpoint but obsolete to the other

On 2018/1/22 14:19, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/1/22 10:40, guoweichao wrote: >> Hi Chao, >> >> On 2018/1/21 10:34, Chao Yu wrote: >>> Hi Weichao, >>> >>> On 2018/1/20 23:50, guoweichao wrote: >>>> Hi Chao, >>>> >>&g

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH RFC] f2fs: add PRE2 to mark segments free to one checkpoint but obsolete to the other

Hi Xiang, On 2018/1/21 11:27, Gao Xiang wrote: > Hi Weichao, > > > On 2018/1/21 0:02, guoweichao wrote: >> Hi Xiang, >> >> it's not related to SPOR. Just consider the case given by Chao Yu. >> > > (It seems this email was not sent successfully, I re

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH RFC] f2fs: add PRE2 to mark segments free to one checkpoint but obsolete to the other

Hi Chao, On 2018/1/21 10:34, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Weichao, > > On 2018/1/20 23:50, guoweichao wrote: >> Hi Chao, >> >> Yes, it is exactly what I mean. >> It seems that F2FS has no responsibility to cover hardware problems. >> However, file systems usually

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH RFC] f2fs: add PRE2 to mark segments free to one checkpoint but obsolete to the other

A critical case is using the free segments as data segments which are previously node segments to the old checkpoint. With fault injecting of the newer CP pack, fsck can find errors when checking the sanity of nid. On 2018/1/20 7:29, Weichao Guo wrote: > Currently, we set prefree segments as

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: no need to punch hole far beyond the file size

On 2017/10/13 20:43, Chao Yu wrote: > > On 2017/10/14 0:59, Weichao Guo wrote: >> Punching hole with a length which far larger than file size will cause >> a long time looping in truncate_hole after lock_op, it can be >> reproduced as the following: >> >> $ echo "abc" > file >>

[f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: convert inline data for direct I/O & FI_NO_PREALLOC

From: Weichao Guo In FI_NO_PREALLOC cases, direct I/O path may allocate blocks for an inode but keep its inline data flag. This inconsistency may trigger vfs clear_inode nrpages bug_on when evicting the inode. We should convert inline data first in this case.

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: convert inline data for direct I/O & FI_NO_PREALLOC

Sorry, made some typos in this patch. Ignore it. On 2017/9/29 22:25, guoweic...@huawei.com wrote: > From: Weichao Guo > > In FI_NO_PREALLOC cases, direct I/O path may allocate blocks for an > inode but keep its inline data flag. This inconsistency may trigger > vfs

[f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: convert inline data for direct I/O & FI_NO_PREALLOC

From: Weichao Guo In FI_NO_PREALLOC cases, direct I/O path may allocate blocks for an inode but keep its inline data flag. This inconsistency may trigger vfs clear_inode nrpages bug_on when evicting the inode. We should convert inline data first in this case.

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: direct I/O -> buffered I/O for FI_NO_PREALLOC & FI_INLINE_DATA

Sure, I will prepare another patch to fix this case. On 2017/9/28 22:23, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2017/9/29 5:47, guoweic...@huawei.com wrote: >> From: Weichao Guo >> >> In FI_NO_PREALLOC cases, direct I/O path may allocate blocks for an inode but >> keep its inline data flag.

[f2fs-dev] 答复: [PATCH] f2fs: make sure f2fs_gc returns consistent errno

Agree, I will send a new verison of this patch. -邮件原件- 发件人: Chao Yu [mailto:c...@kernel.org] 发送时间: 2017年5月9日 23:26 收件人: guoweichao; jaeg...@kernel.org 抄送: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net 主题: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: make sure f2fs_gc returns consistent errno On 2017/5/9 19:37

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: skip checkpoint if having a dirty segment but no prefree at BG_GC -> FG_GC

Hi Jaegeuk, I regard no enough free sections as a precondition when talking about BG_GC -> FG_GC. I mean that for both case a) and b) I mentioned has no enough free sections implicitly. On 2017/2/25 2:49, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Weichao, > > On 02/25, Weichao Guo wrote: >> When turning to

Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] F2FS customized migrate_page callback

On 2016/9/19 22:48, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2016/9/20 5:03, Weichao Guo wrote: >> This patch improves the migration of dirty pages and allows migrating atomic >> written pages that F2FS uses in Page Cache. Instead of the fallback releasing >> page path, it provides better performance for memory