From: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: Fix indefinite loop in f2fs_gc()
Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 08:54:58 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20190807032458.GI8289@codeaurora.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <8766875c-1e35-22dc-48d2-45b6776e4f38@huawei.com>
Hi Chao,
On Wed, Aug 07, 2019 at 10:04:16AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Sahitya,
>
> On 2019/8/6 19:19, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> > Policy - Foreground GC, LFS and greedy GC mode.
> >
> > Under this policy, f2fs_gc() loops forever to GC as it doesn't have
> > enough free segements to proceed and thus it keeps calling gc_more
> > for the same victim segment. This can happen if the selected victim
> > segment could not be GC'd due to failed blkaddr validity check i.e.
> > is_alive() returns false for the blocks set in current validity map.
> >
> > Fix this by keeping track of such invalid segments and skip those
> > segments for selection in get_victim_by_default() to avoid endless
> > GC loop under such error scenarios.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
> > ---
> > v2: fix as per Chao's suggestion to handle this error case
> >
> > fs/f2fs/gc.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
> > fs/f2fs/segment.c | 5 +++++
> > fs/f2fs/segment.h | 3 +++
> > 3 files changed, 22 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > index 8974672..321a78a 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> > @@ -382,6 +382,14 @@ static int get_victim_by_default(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> > nsearched++;
> > }
> >
> > + /*
> > + * skip selecting the invalid segno (that is failed due to block
> > + * validity check failed during GC) to avoid endless GC loop in
> > + * such cases.
> > + */
> > + if (test_bit(segno, sm->invalid_segmap))
> > + goto next;
> > +
> > secno = GET_SEC_FROM_SEG(sbi, segno);
> >
> > if (sec_usage_check(sbi, secno))
> > @@ -975,6 +983,7 @@ static int gc_data_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_summary *sum,
> > int off;
> > int phase = 0;
> > int submitted = 0;
> > + struct sit_info *sit_i = SIT_I(sbi);
> >
> > start_addr = START_BLOCK(sbi, segno);
> >
> > @@ -1008,8 +1017,12 @@ static int gc_data_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_summary *sum,
> > }
> >
> > /* Get an inode by ino with checking validity */
> > - if (!is_alive(sbi, entry, &dni, start_addr + off, &nofs))
> > + if (!is_alive(sbi, entry, &dni, start_addr + off, &nofs)) {
> > + if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, sit_i->invalid_segmap))
> > + f2fs_err(sbi, "invalid blkaddr %u in seg %u is found\n",
> > + start_addr + off, segno);
>
> Oh, there is some normal cases in is_alive(), such as f2fs_get_node_page() or
> f2fs_get_node_info() failure due to no memory, we should bypass such cases. I
Oh, yes, I have missed this point.
> guess something like this:
>
> if (source_blkaddr != blkaddr) {
> if (unlikely(check_valid_map(sbi, segno, off))) {
check_valid_map() is validated before is_alive(). So I think this check again
may not be needed. What do you think?
> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, sit_i->invalid_segmap)) {
> f2fs_err(sbi, "invalid blkaddr %u in seg %u is found\n",
> start_addr + off, segno);
> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> }
> }
> return false;
> }
>
> I think this will be safe to call check_valid_map(), because there should be no
> race in between is_alive() and update_sit_entry() from all paths due to node
> page lock dependence.
>
> One more concern is should we use this under CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS? If there is
> actually such a bug can cause data inconsistency, we'd better find the root
> cause in debug version.
>
Yes, I agree with you. I will include this under CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS.
Thanks,
> Thanks,
>
> > continue;
> > + }
> >
> > if (phase == 2) {
> > f2fs_ra_node_page(sbi, dni.ino);
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > index a661ac3..d45a1d3 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> > @@ -4017,6 +4017,10 @@ static int build_sit_info(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> > return -ENOMEM;
> > #endif
> >
> > + sit_i->invalid_segmap = f2fs_kvzalloc(sbi, bitmap_size, GFP_KERNEL);
> > + if (!sit_i->invalid_segmap)
> > + return -ENOMEM;
> > +
> > /* init SIT information */
> > sit_i->s_ops = &default_salloc_ops;
> >
> > @@ -4518,6 +4522,7 @@ static void destroy_sit_info(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
> > #ifdef CONFIG_F2FS_CHECK_FS
> > kvfree(sit_i->sit_bitmap_mir);
> > #endif
> > + kvfree(sit_i->invalid_segmap);
> > kvfree(sit_i);
> > }
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > index b746028..bc5dbe8 100644
> > --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> > @@ -246,6 +246,9 @@ struct sit_info {
> > unsigned long long min_mtime; /* min. modification time */
> > unsigned long long max_mtime; /* max. modification time */
> >
> > + /* list of segments to be ignored by GC in case of errors */
> > + unsigned long *invalid_segmap;
> > +
> > unsigned int last_victim[MAX_GC_POLICY]; /* last victim segment # */
> > };
> >
> >
--
--
Sent by a consultant of the Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc.
The Qualcomm Innovation Center, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum.
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-08-07 3:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-08-06 11:19 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: Fix indefinite loop in f2fs_gc() Sahitya Tummala
2019-08-07 2:04 ` Chao Yu
2019-08-07 3:24 ` Sahitya Tummala [this message]
2019-08-07 3:37 ` Chao Yu
2019-08-07 5:14 ` Sahitya Tummala
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20190807032458.GI8289@codeaurora.org \
--to=stummala@codeaurora.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).