Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 25 Sep 2018 17:29:09 -0700 | From | Jaegeuk Kim <> | Subject | Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: fix quota info to adjust recovered data |
| |
On 09/21, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2018/9/21 5:42, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 09/20, Chao Yu wrote: > >> On 2018/9/20 6:38, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> On 09/19, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>> On 2018/9/19 0:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>> On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>> On 2018/9/18 10:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>>>>>> On 09/18, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>>>>>> 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 <jaegeuk@kernel.org> > >>>>>>>>> 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. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Okay, I just hit the error again w/o your patch. Another one coming to my mind > >>>>>>> is that caused by uid/gid change during recovery. Let me try out your patch. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I guess we should update dquot and inode's uid/gid atomically under > >>>>>> lock_op() in f2fs_setattr() to prevent corruption on sys quota file. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> v9 can pass all xfstest cases and por_fsstress case w/ sys quota file > >>>>>> enabled, but w/ normal quota file, I got one regression reported by > >>>>>> generic/232, I fixed in v10, will do some tests and release it later. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Note that, my fsck can fix corrupted quota file automatically once > >>>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG is set. > >>>>> > >>>>> I hit failures again with your v9 w/ sysfile quota and modified fsck to detect > >>>> > >>>> That's strange, in my environment, before v9, I always encounter corrupted > >>>> quota sysfile after step 9), after v9, I never hit failure again. > >>>> > >>>> 1) enable fault injection > >>>> 2) run fsstress > >>>> 3) call shutdowon > >>>> 4) kill fsstress > >>>> 5) unmount > >>>> 6) fsck > >>>> 7) mount > >>>> 8) umount > >>>> 9) fsck > >>>> 10) go 1). > >>>> > >>>>> CP_QUOTA_NEED_FSCK_FLAG to fix the partition. Note that, if I set NEED_FSCK > >>>>> flag in roll-forward recovery, everything is fine. > >>>> > >>>> I do the test based on codes in my git tree, could you check the result > >>>> again based on my code? in where I just disable nat_bits recovery, not > >>>> sure, in step 6) fsck can break some thing in image. > >>>> > >>>> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/chao/linux.git/log/?h=f2fs-dev > >>>> > >>>> Also, I just send the fsck code, could you check that too? > >>>> > >>>> And I'd like to know your mount option and mkfs option, could you list for me? > >>> > >>> I'm just doing this. > >>> https://github.com/jaegeuk/xfstests-f2fs/blob/f2fs/run.sh#L220 > >> > >> I just sent one patch to fix POR issue which missed to recover uid/gid of > >> inode. > >> > >> [PATCH] f2fs: fix to recover inode's uid/gid during POR > >> > >> After applying this patch, I can reproduce sys quota file corruption... let > >> me figure out the solution. > > > > Okay. > > Could you try v11, no quota corruption in my test now.
Chao,
I missed your fsck patch to recover this. Could you post it as well?
Thanks,
> > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> 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 <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> > >>>>>>>>> --- > >>>>>>>>> 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); > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> . > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> . > >>>>> > >>> > >>> . > >>> > > > > . > >
| |