On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:00:53AM +0800, Hou Pengyang wrote:
> On 2016/5/16 23:10, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi chao,
> > Hi Pengyang,
> >
> > On 2016/5/16 18:40, Hou Pengyang wrote:
> >> When collecting data segment(gc_data_segment), there is a race condition
> >> between evict and phases of gc:
> >> 0) ra_node_page(dnode)
> >> 1) ra_node_page(inode)
> >> <--- evict the inode
> >> 2) f2fs_iget get the inode and add it to gc_list
> >> 3) move_data_page
> >>
> >> In step 2), f2fs_iget does NOT find the inode and allocs a new inode as
> >> result,
> >
> > If inode was unlinked and then be evicted, f2fs_iget should fail when
> > reading
> > inode's page as blkaddr of this node is null.
> agree, after do_read_inode fail, the newly created inode would be
> freed as a bad inode and f2fs_iget fails. But this may lead to create
> file fail:
> gc:iget_locked
> <---- touch/mkdir(reuse the evicted ino)
> gc:free the bad inode
Seems there is no problem.
After f2fs_evict_inode(ino),
f2fs_iget(ino)
- iget_failed() f2fs_create()
- f2fs_new_inode()
- ino = alloc_nid()
- insert_inode_locked()
*** spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock)
- spin_lock(&old->i_lock)
- __iget(old)
- make_bad_inode() - spin_unlock(&old->i_lock)
- remove_inode_hash() - spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock)
- spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock) - wait_on_inode(old)
- spin_lock(&inode->i_lock)
- list_del
- spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock)
- spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock)
- unlock_new_inode()
- wake_up_bit(&inode->i_state, __I_NEW) --> wake up!
- iput(old) whish was unhashed.
- goto to ***
- iput()
> during the bad inode allocated and freed in gc, the inode is reserved
> in the global inode_hash, while the ino is a free nid in free_nid tree.
>
> touch/mkdir may reuse the ino, during the touch/mkdir path, the global
> inode_hash would be checked if the ino file exists. Under this
> scenario, because of the gc bad inode in inode_hash, touch/mkdir would
> fail.
>
> ilookup seems better, as no need to alloc and free a bad inode.
>
> if ilookup fails, that exactly means inode has been evicted and no need
> to gc;
No, we should do gc for data blocks owned by *evicted* inodes as well.
Thanks,
> if ilookup success, before phase 3, is_alive to deal with the ino reuse
> scenario;
>
> Do I miss anything else?
> thanks
> > If inode still have non-zero nlink value and then be evicted, we should
> > allow gc
> > thread to reference this inode for moving its data pages.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >> which is not resonable.
> >>
> >> This patch changes f2fs_iget to ilookup. when no inode is found, no new
> >> inode is
> >> created.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hou Pengyang <houpengy...@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 4 ++--
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> index 38d56f6..6e73193 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> @@ -717,8 +717,8 @@ next_step:
> >> ofs_in_node = le16_to_cpu(entry->ofs_in_node);
> >>
> >> if (phase == 2) {
> >> - inode = f2fs_iget(sb, dni.ino);
> >> - if (IS_ERR(inode) || is_bad_inode(inode))
> >> + inode = ilookup(sb, dni.ino);
> >> + if (!inode || IS_ERR(inode) || is_bad_inode(inode))
> >> continue;
> >>
> >> /* if encrypted inode, let's go phase 3 */
> >>
> >
> > .
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> linux-f2fs-de...@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
