Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to cover allocate_segment() with lock

2021-04-20 Thread Jaegeuk Kim
On 04/20, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2021/4/20 0:57, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 04/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > As we did for other cases, in fix_curseg_write_pointer(), let's
> > > change as below:
> > > - use callback function s_ops->allocate_segment() instead of
> > > raw function allocate_segment_by_default();
> > > - cover allocate_segment() with curseg_lock and sentry_lock.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu 
> > > ---
> > >   fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 ++-
> > >   1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > 
> > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > > index b2ee6b7791b0..daf9531ec58f 100644
> > > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > > @@ -4848,7 +4848,12 @@ static int fix_curseg_write_pointer(struct 
> > > f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
> > >   f2fs_notice(sbi, "Assign new section to curseg[%d]: "
> > >   "curseg[0x%x,0x%x]", type, cs->segno, 
> > > cs->next_blkoff);
> > > - allocate_segment_by_default(sbi, type, true);
> > > +
> > > + down_read(_I(sbi)->curseg_lock);
> > > + down_write(_I(sbi)->sentry_lock);
> > > + SIT_I(sbi)->s_ops->allocate_segment(sbi, type, true);
> > > + up_write(_I(sbi)->sentry_lock);
> > > + up_read(_I(sbi)->curseg_lock);
> > 
> > Seems f2fs_allocate_new_section()?
> 
> f2fs_allocate_new_section() will allocate new section only when current
> section has been initialized and has valid block/ckpt_block.
> 
> It looks fix_curseg_write_pointer() wants to force migrating current segment
> to new section whenever write pointer and curseg->next_blkoff is inconsistent.
> 
> So how about adding a parameter to force f2fs_allocate_new_section() to
> allocate new section?

I think that can be doable. Hope to avoid native calls as much as possible.

> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > >   /* check consistency of the zone curseg pointed to */
> > >   if (check_zone_write_pointer(sbi, zbd, ))
> > > -- 
> > > 2.29.2
> > .
> > 


Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to cover allocate_segment() with lock

2021-04-19 Thread Chao Yu

On 2021/4/20 0:57, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:

On 04/14, Chao Yu wrote:

As we did for other cases, in fix_curseg_write_pointer(), let's
change as below:
- use callback function s_ops->allocate_segment() instead of
raw function allocate_segment_by_default();
- cover allocate_segment() with curseg_lock and sentry_lock.

Signed-off-by: Chao Yu 
---
  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 ++-
  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index b2ee6b7791b0..daf9531ec58f 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -4848,7 +4848,12 @@ static int fix_curseg_write_pointer(struct f2fs_sb_info 
*sbi, int type)
  
  	f2fs_notice(sbi, "Assign new section to curseg[%d]: "

"curseg[0x%x,0x%x]", type, cs->segno, cs->next_blkoff);
-   allocate_segment_by_default(sbi, type, true);
+
+   down_read(_I(sbi)->curseg_lock);
+   down_write(_I(sbi)->sentry_lock);
+   SIT_I(sbi)->s_ops->allocate_segment(sbi, type, true);
+   up_write(_I(sbi)->sentry_lock);
+   up_read(_I(sbi)->curseg_lock);


Seems f2fs_allocate_new_section()?


f2fs_allocate_new_section() will allocate new section only when current
section has been initialized and has valid block/ckpt_block.

It looks fix_curseg_write_pointer() wants to force migrating current segment
to new section whenever write pointer and curseg->next_blkoff is inconsistent.

So how about adding a parameter to force f2fs_allocate_new_section() to
allocate new section?

Thanks,



  
  	/* check consistency of the zone curseg pointed to */

if (check_zone_write_pointer(sbi, zbd, ))
--
2.29.2

.



Re: [PATCH] f2fs: fix to cover allocate_segment() with lock

2021-04-19 Thread Jaegeuk Kim
On 04/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> As we did for other cases, in fix_curseg_write_pointer(), let's
> change as below:
> - use callback function s_ops->allocate_segment() instead of
> raw function allocate_segment_by_default();
> - cover allocate_segment() with curseg_lock and sentry_lock.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu 
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/segment.c | 7 ++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index b2ee6b7791b0..daf9531ec58f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -4848,7 +4848,12 @@ static int fix_curseg_write_pointer(struct 
> f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int type)
>  
>   f2fs_notice(sbi, "Assign new section to curseg[%d]: "
>   "curseg[0x%x,0x%x]", type, cs->segno, cs->next_blkoff);
> - allocate_segment_by_default(sbi, type, true);
> +
> + down_read(_I(sbi)->curseg_lock);
> + down_write(_I(sbi)->sentry_lock);
> + SIT_I(sbi)->s_ops->allocate_segment(sbi, type, true);
> + up_write(_I(sbi)->sentry_lock);
> + up_read(_I(sbi)->curseg_lock);

Seems f2fs_allocate_new_section()?

>  
>   /* check consistency of the zone curseg pointed to */
>   if (check_zone_write_pointer(sbi, zbd, ))
> -- 
> 2.29.2