From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Chao Yu Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix quota info to adjust recovered data Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 09:38:25 +0800 Message-ID: References: <20180911201546.56566-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <7aa2e6f3-a4b2-dfdd-6205-f19c4bc952e6@kernel.org> <20180912000603.GA67662@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <20180912002700.GA69323@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <650f06f4-7ca3-a3ed-d149-88d1e9f93b7a@huawei.com> <20180912012550.GA71953@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <24ee1c19-ccc1-31db-12d0-30ac76fd645e@huawei.com> <20180912195406.GB8356@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> <20180918011904.GB79604@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180918011904.GB79604@jaegeuk-macbookpro.roam.corp.google.com> Content-Language: en-US Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jaegeuk Kim , Chao Yu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: linux-f2fs-devel.lists.sourceforge.net On 2018/9/18 9:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 09/13, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2018/9/13 3:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> On 2018/9/12 9:40, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>> On 2018/9/12 9:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 8:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>> On 09/11, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 09/12, Chao Yu wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 2018/9/12 4:15, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> fsck.f2fs is able to recover the quota structure, since roll-forward recovery >>>>>>>>>>> can recover it based on previous user information. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I didn't get it, both fsck and kernel recover quota file based all inodes' >>>>>>>>>> uid/gid/prjid, if {x}id didn't change, wouldn't those two recovery result be the >>>>>>>>>> same? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I thought that, but had to add this, since I was encountering quota errors right >>>>>>>>> after getting some files recovered. And, I thought it'd make it more safe to do >>>>>>>>> fsck after roll-forward recovery. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Anyway, let me test again without this patch for a while. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hmm, I just got a fsck failure right after some files recovered. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To make sure, do you test with "f2fs: guarantee journalled quota data by >>>>>>> checkpoint"? if not, I think there is no guarantee that f2fs can recover >>>>>>> quote info into correct quote file, because, in last checkpoint, quota file >>>>>>> may was corrupted/inconsistent. Right? >>>>> >>>>> Oh, I forget to mention that, I add a patch to fsck to let it noticing >>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG flag, and by default, fsck will fix corrupted quote >>>>> file if the flag is set, but w/o this flag, quota file is still corrupted >>>>> detected by fsck, I guess there is bug in v8. >>>> >>>> In v8, there are two cases we didn't guarantee quota file's consistence: >>>> 1. flush time in block_operation exceed a threshold. >>>> 2. dquot subsystem error occurs. >>>> >>>> For above case, fsck should repair the quota file by default. >>> >>> Okay, I got another failure and it seems CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG was not set >>> during the recovery. So, we have something missing in the recovery in terms >>> of quota updates. >> >> Yeah, I checked the code, just found one suspected place: >> >> find_fsync_dnodes() >> - f2fs_recover_inode_page >> - inc_valid_node_count >> - dquot_reserve_block dquot info is not initialized now >> - add_fsync_inode >> - dquot_initialize >> >> I think we should reserve block for inode block after dquot_initialize(), can >> you confirm this? > > Let me test this. > >>>From b90260bc577fe87570b1ef7b134554a8295b1f6c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jaegeuk Kim > Date: Mon, 17 Sep 2018 18:14:41 -0700 > Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: count inode block for recovered files > > If a new file is recovered, we missed to reserve its inode block. I remember, in order to keep line with other filesystem, unlike on-disk, we have to keep backward compatibilty, in memory we don't account block number for f2fs' inode block, but only account inode number for it, so here like we did in inc_valid_node_count(), we don't need to do this. Can you test v9 first? I didn't encounter quota corruption with your testcase right now. Will check it in cell phone environment. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim > --- > fs/f2fs/recovery.c | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c > index 56d34193a74b..bff5cf730e13 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/recovery.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/recovery.c > @@ -84,6 +84,11 @@ static struct fsync_inode_entry *add_fsync_inode(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, > err = dquot_alloc_inode(inode); > if (err) > goto err_out; > + err = dquot_reserve_block(inode, 1); > + if (err) { > + dquot_drop(inode); > + goto err_out; > + } > } > > entry = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(fsync_entry_slab, GFP_F2FS_ZERO); >