| Message ID | 1507900897-156286-1-git-send-email-yunlong.song@huawei.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote: > Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some > corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are > reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes > CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is > CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty > status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to > get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After > f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81. > Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete > 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This > can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic. Look into this patch again, I found refresh_sit_entry is called after ->allocate_segment, so if all 512 blocks were allocated, log header should have been moved to another segment, so locate_dirty_segment in refresh_sit_entry should update dirty status of previous segment correctly, anything I'm missing? Thanks, > > Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> > --- > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c > index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c > @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno, > struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); > > /* need not be added */ > - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) > + if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE) > return; > > if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type])) > @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno) > struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); > unsigned short valid_blocks; > > - if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) > + if (segno == NULL_SEGNO) > return; > > mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock); >
Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have
commit
c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment
after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still
behind
refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message:
"This makes a leak to register dirty segments. I reproduced the issue by
modified postmark which injects a lot of file create/delete/update and
finally triggers huge number of SSR allocations."
The reason is that if refresh_sit_entry is before allocate_segment, then the
dirty status of CURSEG is not updated, as a result, the count of dirty
segments
is wrong, which is much smaller than its real value. Then the f2fs_gc
can not
do its work since it can not even get one victim, then the free segments are
used up and then triggers much SSR. So Jay reverts the patch.
It seems there are two options:
(1) keep this patch ([PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as
well)
and we can recover commit 3436c4bdb30de421d46f58c9174669fbcfd40ce0
(f2fs: put allocate_segment after refresh_sit_entry)
(2) remove this patch at all
It seems (1) is robust, but (2) avoids unnecessary check.
On 2017/10/14 8:14, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote:
>> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some
>> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are
>> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes
>> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is
>> CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty
>> status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to
>> get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After
>> f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81.
>> Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete
>> 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This
>> can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic.
> Look into this patch again, I found refresh_sit_entry is called after
> ->allocate_segment, so if all 512 blocks were allocated, log header should
> have been moved to another segment, so locate_dirty_segment in
> refresh_sit_entry should update dirty status of previous segment correctly,
> anything I'm missing?
>
> Thanks,
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno,
>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi);
>>
>> /* need not be added */
>> - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno))
>> + if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE)
>> return;
>>
>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type]))
>> @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno)
>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi);
>> unsigned short valid_blocks;
>>
>> - if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno))
>> + if (segno == NULL_SEGNO)
>> return;
>>
>> mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock);
>>
> .
>
On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote: > Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have > commit > c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment > after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still > behind > refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message: > "This makes a leak to register dirty segments. I reproduced the issue by > modified postmark which injects a lot of file create/delete/update and > finally triggers huge number of SSR allocations." > > The reason is that if refresh_sit_entry is before allocate_segment, then the > dirty status of CURSEG is not updated, as a result, the count of dirty > segments > is wrong, which is much smaller than its real value. Then the f2fs_gc > can not > do its work since it can not even get one victim, then the free segments are > used up and then triggers much SSR. So Jay reverts the patch. > > It seems there are two options: > (1) keep this patch ([PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as > well) > and we can recover commit 3436c4bdb30de421d46f58c9174669fbcfd40ce0 > (f2fs: put allocate_segment after refresh_sit_entry) > (2) remove this patch at all > > It seems (1) is robust, but (2) avoids unnecessary check. What about reverting 5e443818fa0b ("f2fs: handle dirty segments inside refresh_sit_entry") to keep the original order: 1. update sit info 2. allocate new segment 3. update dirty status of segment Thanks, > > On 2017/10/14 8:14, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote: >>> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some >>> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are >>> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes >>> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is >>> CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty >>> status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to >>> get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After >>> f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81. >>> Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete >>> 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This >>> can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic. >> Look into this patch again, I found refresh_sit_entry is called after >> ->allocate_segment, so if all 512 blocks were allocated, log header should >> have been moved to another segment, so locate_dirty_segment in >> refresh_sit_entry should update dirty status of previous segment correctly, >> anything I'm missing? >> >> Thanks, >> >>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> >>> --- >>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++-- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>> index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644 >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno, >>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); >>> >>> /* need not be added */ >>> - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) >>> + if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE) >>> return; >>> >>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type])) >>> @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno) >>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); >>> unsigned short valid_blocks; >>> >>> - if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) >>> + if (segno == NULL_SEGNO) >>> return; >>> >>> mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock); >>> >> . >> >
Hi Yunlong, I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different opinion, let me know. Thanks, On 2017/10/16 11:43, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote: >> Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have >> commit >> c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment >> after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still >> behind >> refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message: >> "This makes a leak to register dirty segments. I reproduced the issue by >> modified postmark which injects a lot of file create/delete/update and >> finally triggers huge number of SSR allocations." >> >> The reason is that if refresh_sit_entry is before allocate_segment, then the >> dirty status of CURSEG is not updated, as a result, the count of dirty >> segments >> is wrong, which is much smaller than its real value. Then the f2fs_gc >> can not >> do its work since it can not even get one victim, then the free segments are >> used up and then triggers much SSR. So Jay reverts the patch. >> >> It seems there are two options: >> (1) keep this patch ([PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as >> well) >> and we can recover commit 3436c4bdb30de421d46f58c9174669fbcfd40ce0 >> (f2fs: put allocate_segment after refresh_sit_entry) >> (2) remove this patch at all >> >> It seems (1) is robust, but (2) avoids unnecessary check. > > What about reverting 5e443818fa0b ("f2fs: handle dirty segments inside > refresh_sit_entry") to keep the original order: > > 1. update sit info > 2. allocate new segment > 3. update dirty status of segment > > Thanks, > >> >> On 2017/10/14 8:14, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote: >>>> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some >>>> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are >>>> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes >>>> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is >>>> CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty >>>> status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to >>>> get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After >>>> f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81. >>>> Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete >>>> 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This >>>> can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic. >>> Look into this patch again, I found refresh_sit_entry is called after >>> ->allocate_segment, so if all 512 blocks were allocated, log header should >>> have been moved to another segment, so locate_dirty_segment in >>> refresh_sit_entry should update dirty status of previous segment correctly, >>> anything I'm missing? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno, >>>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); >>>> >>>> /* need not be added */ >>>> - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) >>>> + if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE) >>>> return; >>>> >>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type])) >>>> @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno) >>>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); >>>> unsigned short valid_blocks; >>>> >>>> - if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) >>>> + if (segno == NULL_SEGNO) >>>> return; >>>> >>>> mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock); >>>> >>> . >>> >> >
Hi Chao,
Thanks for your work. I send a v2 patch, which changes
refresh_sit_entry to static.
On 2017/10/28 20:02, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Yunlong,
>
> I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out
> authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different opinion, let
> me know.
>
> Thanks,
>
> On 2017/10/16 11:43, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote:
>>> Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have
>>> commit
>>> c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment
>>> after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still
>>> behind
>>> refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message:
>>> "This makes a leak to register dirty segments. I reproduced the issue by
>>> modified postmark which injects a lot of file create/delete/update and
>>> finally triggers huge number of SSR allocations."
>>>
>>> The reason is that if refresh_sit_entry is before allocate_segment, then the
>>> dirty status of CURSEG is not updated, as a result, the count of dirty
>>> segments
>>> is wrong, which is much smaller than its real value. Then the f2fs_gc
>>> can not
>>> do its work since it can not even get one victim, then the free segments are
>>> used up and then triggers much SSR. So Jay reverts the patch.
>>>
>>> It seems there are two options:
>>> (1) keep this patch ([PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as
>>> well)
>>> and we can recover commit 3436c4bdb30de421d46f58c9174669fbcfd40ce0
>>> (f2fs: put allocate_segment after refresh_sit_entry)
>>> (2) remove this patch at all
>>>
>>> It seems (1) is robust, but (2) avoids unnecessary check.
>> What about reverting 5e443818fa0b ("f2fs: handle dirty segments inside
>> refresh_sit_entry") to keep the original order:
>>
>> 1. update sit info
>> 2. allocate new segment
>> 3. update dirty status of segment
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> On 2017/10/14 8:14, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote:
>>>>> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some
>>>>> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are
>>>>> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes
>>>>> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is
>>>>> CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty
>>>>> status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to
>>>>> get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After
>>>>> f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81.
>>>>> Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete
>>>>> 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This
>>>>> can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic.
>>>> Look into this patch again, I found refresh_sit_entry is called after
>>>> ->allocate_segment, so if all 512 blocks were allocated, log header should
>>>> have been moved to another segment, so locate_dirty_segment in
>>>> refresh_sit_entry should update dirty status of previous segment correctly,
>>>> anything I'm missing?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++--
>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>> index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno,
>>>>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi);
>>>>>
>>>>> /* need not be added */
>>>>> - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno))
>>>>> + if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE)
>>>>> return;
>>>>>
>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type]))
>>>>> @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno)
>>>>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi);
>>>>> unsigned short valid_blocks;
>>>>>
>>>>> - if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno))
>>>>> + if (segno == NULL_SEGNO)
>>>>> return;
>>>>>
>>>>> mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock);
>>>>>
>>>> .
>>>>
> .
>
Hi Yunlong, On 2017/10/28 23:58, Yunlong Song wrote: > Hi Chao, > Thanks for your work. I send a v2 patch, which changes refresh_sit_entry to static. The cleanup looks good to me, but you know, the commit title is not friendly for reading, what about using common 'Revert: "original commit tile"' here? Thanks, > > On 2017/10/28 20:02, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Yunlong, >> >> I think you're so busy, I just help to refactor your patch, and send it out >> authored with you, please check that patch, if you have different opinion, let >> me know. >> >> Thanks, >> >> On 2017/10/16 11:43, Chao Yu wrote: >>> On 2017/10/14 20:53, Yunlong Song wrote: >>>> Oh, yes it is. I found that problem in a kernel tree which does not have >>>> commit >>>> c6f82fe90d7458e5fa190a6820bfc24f96b0de4e (Revert "f2fs: put allocate_segment >>>> after refresh_sit_entry"). In that kernel, the allocate_segment is still >>>> behind >>>> refresh_sit_entry. Now I understand the commit message: >>>> "This makes a leak to register dirty segments. I reproduced the issue by >>>> modified postmark which injects a lot of file create/delete/update and >>>> finally triggers huge number of SSR allocations." >>>> >>>> The reason is that if refresh_sit_entry is before allocate_segment, then the >>>> dirty status of CURSEG is not updated, as a result, the count of dirty >>>> segments >>>> is wrong, which is much smaller than its real value. Then the f2fs_gc >>>> can not >>>> do its work since it can not even get one victim, then the free segments are >>>> used up and then triggers much SSR. So Jay reverts the patch. >>>> >>>> It seems there are two options: >>>> (1) keep this patch ([PATCH v2] f2fs: update dirty status for CURSEG as >>>> well) >>>> and we can recover commit 3436c4bdb30de421d46f58c9174669fbcfd40ce0 >>>> (f2fs: put allocate_segment after refresh_sit_entry) >>>> (2) remove this patch at all >>>> >>>> It seems (1) is robust, but (2) avoids unnecessary check. >>> What about reverting 5e443818fa0b ("f2fs: handle dirty segments inside >>> refresh_sit_entry") to keep the original order: >>> >>> 1. update sit info >>> 2. allocate new segment >>> 3. update dirty status of segment >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>>> On 2017/10/14 8:14, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2017/10/13 21:21, Yunlong Song wrote: >>>>>> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some >>>>>> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are >>>>>> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes >>>>>> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is >>>>>> CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty >>>>>> status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to >>>>>> get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After >>>>>> f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81. >>>>>> Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete >>>>>> 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This >>>>>> can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic. >>>>> Look into this patch again, I found refresh_sit_entry is called after >>>>> ->allocate_segment, so if all 512 blocks were allocated, log header should >>>>> have been moved to another segment, so locate_dirty_segment in >>>>> refresh_sit_entry should update dirty status of previous segment correctly, >>>>> anything I'm missing? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++-- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>>>> index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644 >>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c >>>>>> @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno, >>>>>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); >>>>>> /* need not be added */ >>>>>> - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) >>>>>> + if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE) >>>>>> return; >>>>>> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type])) >>>>>> @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno) >>>>>> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); >>>>>> unsigned short valid_blocks; >>>>>> - if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) >>>>>> + if (segno == NULL_SEGNO) >>>>>> return; >>>>>> mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock); >>>>>> >>>>> . >>>>> >> . >> >
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c index bfbcff8..0fce076 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c @@ -687,7 +687,7 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno, struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); /* need not be added */ - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) + if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno) && dirty_type == PRE) return; if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type])) @@ -737,7 +737,7 @@ static void locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno) struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi); unsigned short valid_blocks; - if (segno == NULL_SEGNO || IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno)) + if (segno == NULL_SEGNO) return; mutex_lock(&dirty_i->seglist_lock);
Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81. Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic. Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@huawei.com> --- fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)