Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 May 2022 11:03:37 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: change the current atomic write way |
| |
On 05/22, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2022/4/29 2:18, Daeho Jeong wrote:> + *old_addr = dn.data_blkaddr; > > + f2fs_truncate_data_blocks_range(&dn, 1); > > + dec_valid_block_count(sbi, F2FS_I(inode)->cow_inode, count); > > + inc_valid_block_count(sbi, inode, &count); > > + f2fs_replace_block(sbi, &dn, dn.data_blkaddr, new_addr, > > + ni.version, true, false); > > My concern is, if cow_inode's data was persisted into previous checkpoint, > and then f2fs_replace_block() will update SSA from cow_inode to inode?
SSA for original file is intact, so we'll see the orignal file's block addresses and SSA, if we flush cow_inode's SSA after committing the atomic writes? It'd be good to flush any SSA for cow_inode, since we'll truncate cow_inode after powercut by the ohphan recovery?
> it will cause inconsistent status of last valid checkpoint? Or am I mssing > something? > > > - f2fs_submit_merged_write_cond(sbi, inode, NULL, 0, DATA); > > + new = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(revoke_entry_slab, GFP_NOFS, > > + true, NULL); > > + if (!new) { > > + f2fs_put_dnode(&dn); > > + ret = -ENOMEM; > > + goto out; > > It doesn't need to handle failure of f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc() > due to nofail parameter is true. > > Thanks, > > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list > Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
| |