Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: Fix mount failure due to SPO after a successful online resize FS

[Sahitya Tummala]

Hi Chao,

On Tue, Mar 03, 2020 at 08:06:21PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Sahitya,
> 
> On 2020/3/2 12:39, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> > 
> > On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 04:35:37PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Hi Sahitya,
> >>
> >> Good catch.
> >>
> >> On 2020/2/27 18:39, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> >>> Even though online resize is successfully done, a SPO immediately
> >>> after resize, still causes below error in the next mount.
> >>>
> >>> [   11.294650] F2FS-fs (sda8): Wrong user_block_count: 2233856
> >>> [   11.300272] F2FS-fs (sda8): Failed to get valid F2FS checkpoint
> >>>
> >>> This is because after FS metadata is updated in update_fs_metadata()
> >>> if the SBI_IS_DIRTY is not dirty, then CP will not be done to reflect
> >>> the new user_block_count.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> ---
> >>>  fs/f2fs/gc.c | 1 +
> >>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >>>
> >>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>> index a92fa49..a14a75f 100644
> >>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>> @@ -1577,6 +1577,7 @@ int f2fs_resize_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, __u64 block_count)
> >>>  
> >>>  	update_fs_metadata(sbi, -secs);
> >>>  	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_RESIZEFS);
> >>
> >> Need a barrier here to keep order in between above code and set_sbi_flag(DIRTY)?
> > 
> > I don't think a barrier will help here. Let us say there is a another context
> > doing CP already, then it races with update_fs_metadata(), so it may or may not
> > see the resize updates and it will also clear the SBI_IS_DIRTY flag set by resize
> > (even with a barrier).
> 
> I agreed, actually, we didn't consider race condition in between CP and
> update_fs_metadata(), it should be fixed.
> 
> > 
> > I think we need to synchronize this with CP context, so that these resize changes
> > will be reflected properly. Please see the new diff below and help with the review.
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > index a14a75f..5554af8 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > @@ -1467,6 +1467,7 @@ static void update_fs_metadata(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int secs)
> >         long long user_block_count =
> >                                 le64_to_cpu(F2FS_CKPT(sbi)->user_block_count);
> > 
> > +       clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY);
> 
> Why clear dirty flag here?

Yes, it is not required. I will remove it.

> 
> And why not use cp_mutex to protect update_fs_metadata() in error path of
> f2fs_sync_fs() below?

Yes, will add a lock there too.

Thanks,

> 
> >         SM_I(sbi)->segment_count = (int)SM_I(sbi)->segment_count + segs;
> >         MAIN_SEGS(sbi) = (int)MAIN_SEGS(sbi) + segs;
> >         FREE_I(sbi)->free_sections = (int)FREE_I(sbi)->free_sections + secs;
> > @@ -1575,9 +1576,12 @@ int f2fs_resize_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, __u64 block_count)
> >                 goto out;
> >         }
> > 
> > +       mutex_lock(&sbi->cp_mutex);
> >         update_fs_metadata(sbi, -secs);
> >         clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_RESIZEFS);
> >         set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY);
> > +       mutex_unlock(&sbi->cp_mutex);
> > +
> >         err = f2fs_sync_fs(sbi->sb, 1);
> >         if (err) {
> >                 update_fs_metadata(sbi, secs);
> 
> 		  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> In addition, I found that we missed to use sb_lock to protect f2fs_super_block
> fields update, will submit a patch for that.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > thanks,
> > 
> >>
> >>> +	set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY);
> >>>  	err = f2fs_sync_fs(sbi->sb, 1);
> >>>  	if (err) {
> >>>  		update_fs_metadata(sbi, secs);
> >>
> >> Do we need to add clear_sbi_flag(, SBI_IS_DIRTY) into update_fs_metadata(), so above
> >> path can be covered as well?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> > 

-- 
--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.