From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org>
Cc: Yongpeng Yang <monty_pavel@sina.com>,
Yongpeng Yang <yangyongpeng@xiaomi.com>,
stable@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix node_cnt race between extent node destroy and writeback
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2026 21:52:01 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <aefxgWziiiNc73d2@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9b518ad1-18ad-4eb4-86d4-3a27e40a7635@kernel.org>
On 04/21, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 4/21/2026 4:44 PM, Yongpeng Yang wrote:
> >
> > On 4/20/26 15:28, Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel wrote:
> > > On 4/19/2026 12:29 AM, Yongpeng Yang wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 4/18/26 8:51 AM, Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel wrote:
> > > > > On 4/17/26 21:26, Yongpeng Yang wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 4/17/26 17:00, Chao Yu via Linux-f2fs-devel wrote:
> > > > > > > On 4/3/26 22:40, Yongpeng Yang wrote:
> > > > > > > > From: Yongpeng Yang <yangyongpeng@xiaomi.com>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > f2fs_destroy_extent_node() does not set FI_NO_EXTENT before clearing
> > > > > > > > extent nodes. When called from f2fs_drop_inode() with I_SYNC set,
> > > > > > > > concurrent kworker writeback can insert new extent nodes into the
> > > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > > extent tree, racing with the destroy and triggering f2fs_bug_on() in
> > > > > > > > __destroy_extent_node(). The scenario is as follows:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > drop inode writeback
> > > > > > > > - iput
> > > > > > > > - f2fs_drop_inode // I_SYNC set
> > > > > > > > - f2fs_destroy_extent_node
> > > > > > > > - __destroy_extent_node
> > > > > > > > - while (node_cnt) {
> > > > > > > > write_lock(&et->lock)
> > > > > > > > __free_extent_tree
> > > > > > > > write_unlock(&et->lock)
> > > > > > > > - __writeback_single_inode
> > > > > > > > - f2fs_outplace_write_data
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > f2fs_update_read_extent_cache
> > > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > > __update_extent_tree_range
> > > > > > > > // FI_NO_EXTENT not
> > > > > > > > set,
> > > > > > > > // insert new extent
> > > > > > > > node
> > > > > > > > } // node_cnt == 0, exit while
> > > > > > > > - f2fs_bug_on(node_cnt) // node_cnt > 0
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Additionally, __update_extent_tree_range() only checks
> > > > > > > > FI_NO_EXTENT for
> > > > > > > > EX_READ type, leaving EX_BLOCK_AGE updates completely unprotected.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > This patch set FI_NO_EXTENT under et->lock in
> > > > > > > > __destroy_extent_node(),
> > > > > > > > consistent with other callers (__update_extent_tree_range and
> > > > > > > > __drop_extent_tree) and check FI_NO_EXTENT for both EX_READ and
> > > > > > > > EX_BLOCK_AGE tree.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suffered below test failure, then I bisect to this change.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > generic/475 84s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch
> > > > > > > (see /
> > > > > > > share/git/fstests/results//generic/475.out.bad)
> > > > > > > --- tests/generic/475.out 2025-01-12 21:57:40.279440664 +0800
> > > > > > > +++ /share/git/fstests/results//generic/475.out.bad 2026-04-17
> > > > > > > 12:08:28.000000000 +0800
> > > > > > > @@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
> > > > > > > QA output created by 475
> > > > > > > Silence is golden.
> > > > > > > +mount: /mnt/scratch_f2fs: mount system call failed: Structure
> > > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > cleaning.
> > > > > > > + dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount
> > > > > > > system
> > > > > > > call.
> > > > > > > +mount failed
> > > > > > > +(see /share/git/fstests/results//generic/475.full for details)
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > (Run 'diff -u /share/git/fstests/tests/generic/475.out /
> > > > > > > share/git/
> > > > > > > fstests/results//generic/475.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > generic/388 73s ... [failed, exit status 1]- output mismatch
> > > > > > > (see /
> > > > > > > share/git/fstests/results//generic/388.out.bad)
> > > > > > > --- tests/generic/388.out 2025-01-12 21:57:40.275440602 +0800
> > > > > > > +++ /share/git/fstests/results//generic/388.out.bad 2026-04-17
> > > > > > > 11:58:05.000000000 +0800
> > > > > > > @@ -1,2 +1,6 @@
> > > > > > > QA output created by 388
> > > > > > > Silence is golden.
> > > > > > > +mount: /mnt/scratch_f2fs: mount system call failed: Structure
> > > > > > > needs
> > > > > > > cleaning.
> > > > > > > + dmesg(1) may have more information after failed mount
> > > > > > > system
> > > > > > > call.
> > > > > > > +cycle mount failed
> > > > > > > +(see /share/git/fstests/results//generic/388.full for details)
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > (Run 'diff -u /share/git/fstests/tests/generic/388.out /
> > > > > > > share/git/
> > > > > > > fstests/results//generic/388.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > F2FS-fs (dm-0): sanity_check_extent_cache: inode (ino=1761)
> > > > > > > extent
> > > > > > > info [220057, 57, 6] is incorrect, run fsck to fix
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I suspect we may miss any extent updates after we set FI_NO_EXTENT in
> > > > > > > __destroy_extent_node(), result in failing in
> > > > > > > sanity_check_extent_cache().
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Can we just relocate f2fs_bug_on(node_cnt) rather than complicated
> > > > > > > change?
> > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Oh, I overlooked largest extent. How about relocate
> > > > > > f2fs_bug_on(node_cnt) to __destroy_extent_tree?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static void __destroy_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, enum extent_type
> > > > > > type)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* free all extent info belong to this extent tree */
> > > > > > node_cnt = __destroy_extent_node(inode, type);
> > > > > > + f2fs_bug_on(sbi, atomic_read(&et->node_cnt));
> > > > >
> > > > > /* free all extent info belong to this extent tree */
> > > > > node_cnt = __destroy_extent_node(inode, type);
> > > > >
> > > > > /* delete extent tree entry in radix tree */
> > > > > mutex_lock(&eti->extent_tree_lock);
> > > > > f2fs_bug_on(sbi, atomic_read(&et->node_cnt)); <---
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh, it has already checked node_cnt, so, maybe we can just remove the
> > > > > check in
> > > > > __destroy_extent_node()?
> > > >
> > > > Yes. BTW, is it correct to remove the call to f2fs_destroy_extent_node()
> > > > in f2fs_drop_inode()? It seems this call is unnecessary, since
> > > > f2fs_evict_inode() will eventually delete all extent nodes properly.
> > >
> > > I think it's fine to keep it according to original intention "destroy
> > > extent_tree for the truncation case" introduced from 3e72f721390d
> > > ("f2fs: use extent_cache by default"). It helps the performance w/
> > > in batch extent node release.
> >
> > Oh, I see. This patch has already been merged into the dev branch. Which
> > of the following approaches would be more appropriate?
> > 1. Drop the current patch from the dev branch, then submit a patch to
> > remove the f2fs_bug_on() in __destroy_extent_node.
> > 2. Send two patches: the first reverts the change, and the second
> > removes the f2fs_bug_on() in __destroy_extent_node().
>
> It's near the end of merge window, I think we need to keep dev as
> it is, and create another patch to revert previous change and drop
> the f2fs_bug_on() as well, what do you think?
Yes, I just sent a pull request. If the merge patch doesn't break anything,
let's apply a new one only.
>
> To Jaegeuk, thoughts?
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> > Thanks
> > Yongpeng,
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Thanks
> > > > Yongpeng,
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > Yongpeng,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Fixes: 3fc5d5a182f6 ("f2fs: fix to shrink read extent node in
> > > > > > > > batches")
> > > > > > > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
> > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Yongpeng Yang <yangyongpeng@xiaomi.com>
> > > > > > > > ---
> > > > > > > > fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c | 17 ++++++++++-------
> > > > > > > > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
> > > > > > > > index 0ed84cc065a7..87169fd29d89 100644
> > > > > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
> > > > > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
> > > > > > > > @@ -119,9 +119,10 @@ static bool __may_extent_tree(struct inode
> > > > > > > > *inode, enum extent_type type)
> > > > > > > > if (!__init_may_extent_tree(inode, type))
> > > > > > > > return false;
> > > > > > > > + if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT))
> > > > > > > > + return false;
> > > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > > if (type == EX_READ) {
> > > > > > > > - if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT))
> > > > > > > > - return false;
> > > > > > > > if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_COMPRESSED_FILE) &&
> > > > > > > > !f2fs_sb_has_readonly(F2FS_I_SB(inode)))
> > > > > > > > return false;
> > > > > > > > @@ -644,6 +645,8 @@ static unsigned int __destroy_extent_node(struct
> > > > > > > > inode *inode,
> > > > > > > > while (atomic_read(&et->node_cnt)) {
> > > > > > > > write_lock(&et->lock);
> > > > > > > > + if (!is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT))
> > > > > > > > + set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT);
> > > > > > > > node_cnt += __free_extent_tree(sbi, et, nr_shrink);
> > > > > > > > write_unlock(&et->lock);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > @@ -688,12 +691,12 @@ static void __update_extent_tree_range(struct
> > > > > > > > inode *inode,
> > > > > > > > write_lock(&et->lock);
> > > > > > > > - if (type == EX_READ) {
> > > > > > > > - if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT)) {
> > > > > > > > - write_unlock(&et->lock);
> > > > > > > > - return;
> > > > > > > > - }
> > > > > > > > + if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT)) {
> > > > > > > > + write_unlock(&et->lock);
> > > > > > > > + return;
> > > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > > > + if (type == EX_READ) {
> > > > > > > > prev = et->largest;
> > > > > > > > dei.len = 0;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> >
prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-04-21 21:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-04-03 14:40 [PATCH] f2fs: fix node_cnt race between extent node destroy and writeback Yongpeng Yang
2026-04-13 11:23 ` Chao Yu
2026-04-15 16:50 ` [f2fs-dev] " patchwork-bot+f2fs
2026-04-17 9:00 ` Chao Yu
2026-04-17 13:26 ` [f2fs-dev] " Yongpeng Yang
2026-04-18 0:51 ` Chao Yu
2026-04-18 16:29 ` Yongpeng Yang
2026-04-20 7:28 ` Chao Yu
2026-04-21 8:44 ` Yongpeng Yang
2026-04-21 9:04 ` Chao Yu
2026-04-21 21:52 ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
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=aefxgWziiiNc73d2@google.com \
--to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=monty_pavel@sina.com \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yangyongpeng@xiaomi.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