From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Date: Thu, 29 Sep 2016 17:53:00 -0700 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: use crc and cp version to determine roll-forward recovery Message-ID: <20160930005300.GC44999@jaegeuk> References: <20160920025504.72524-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <5b3d81fe-902e-5512-4766-30ad62390373@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <5b3d81fe-902e-5512-4766-30ad62390373@huawei.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Sep 29, 2016 at 08:01:32PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2016/9/20 10:55, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > Previously, we used cp_version only to detect recoverable dnodes. > > In order to avoid same garbage cp_version, we needed to truncate the next > > dnode during checkpoint, resulting in additional discard or data write. > > If we can distinguish this by using crc in addition to cp_version, we can > > remove this overhead. > > > > There is backward compatibility concern where it changes node_footer layout. > > But, it only affects the direct nodes written after the last checkpoint. > > We simply expect that user would change kernel versions back and forth after > > stable checkpoint. > > Seems with new released v4.8 f2fs, old image with recoverable data could be > mounted successfully, but meanwhile all fsynced data which needs to be recovered > will be lost w/o any hints? > > Could we release a new version mkfs paired with new kernel module, so we can tag > image as a new layout one, then new kernel module can recognize the image layout > and adjust version suited comparing method with old or new image? Hmm, how about adding a checkpoint flag like CP_CRC_RECOVERY_FLAG? Then, we can proceed crc|cp_ver, if the last checkpoint has this flag. Any thought? > > Thanks, > >