On 2016/8/27 9:01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 10:20:18PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> From: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> >> >> tests/generic/251 of fstest suit complains us with below message: >> >> ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP >> CPU: 2 PID: 7698 Comm: fstrim Tainted: G O 4.7.0+ #21 >> task: e9f4e000 task.stack: e7262000 >> EIP: 0060:[<f89fcefe>] EFLAGS: 00010202 CPU: 2 >> EIP is at write_checkpoint+0xfde/0x1020 [f2fs] >> EAX: f33eb300 EBX: eecac310 ECX: 00000001 EDX: ffff0001 >> ESI: eecac000 EDI: eecac5f0 EBP: e7263dec ESP: e7263d18 >> DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 0033 SS: 0068 >> CR0: 80050033 CR2: b76ab01c CR3: 2eb89de0 CR4: 000406f0 >> Stack: >> 00000001 a220fb7b e9f4e000 00000002 419ff2d3 b3a05151 00000002 e9f4e5d8 >> e9f4e000 419ff2d3 b3a05151 eecac310 c10b8154 b3a05151 419ff2d3 c10b78bd >> e9f4e000 e9f4e000 e9f4e5d8 00000001 e9f4e000 ec409000 eecac2cc eecac288 >> Call Trace: >> [<c10b8154>] ? __lock_acquire+0x3c4/0x760 >> [<c10b78bd>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5d/0x80 >> [<f8a10632>] f2fs_trim_fs+0x1c2/0x2e0 [f2fs] >> [<f89e9f56>] f2fs_ioctl+0x6b6/0x10b0 [f2fs] >> [<c13d51df>] ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0xf/0x20 >> [<c10b4281>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x91/0x120 >> [<f89e98a0>] ? __exchange_data_block+0xd30/0xd30 [f2fs] >> [<c120b2e1>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x81/0x7f0 >> [<c11d57c5>] ? kmem_cache_free+0x245/0x2e0 >> [<c1217840>] ? get_unused_fd_flags+0x40/0x40 >> [<c1206eec>] ? putname+0x4c/0x50 >> [<c11f631e>] ? do_sys_open+0x16e/0x1d0 >> [<c1001990>] ? do_fast_syscall_32+0x30/0x1c0 >> [<c13d51df>] ? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0xf/0x20 >> [<c120baa8>] SyS_ioctl+0x58/0x80 >> [<c1001a01>] do_fast_syscall_32+0xa1/0x1c0 >> [<c178cc54>] sysenter_past_esp+0x45/0x74 >> EIP: [<f89fcefe>] write_checkpoint+0xfde/0x1020 [f2fs] SS:ESP 0068:e7263d18 >> ---[ end trace 4de95d7e6b3aa7c6 ]--- >> >> The reason is: with below call stack, we will encounter BUG_ON during >> doing fstrim. >> >> Thread A Thread B >> - write_checkpoint >> - do_checkpoint >> - f2fs_write_inode >> - update_inode_page >> - update_inode >> - set_page_dirty >> - f2fs_set_node_page_dirty >> - inc_page_count >> - percpu_counter_inc >> - set_sbi_flag(SBI_IS_DIRTY) >> - clear_sbi_flag(SBI_IS_DIRTY) >> >> Thread C Thread D >> - f2fs_write_node_page >> - set_node_addr >> - __set_nat_cache_dirty >> - nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt++ >> - do_vfs_ioctl >> - f2fs_ioctl >> - f2fs_trim_fs >> - write_checkpoint >> - f2fs_bug_on(nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt) >> >> Fix it by setting superblock dirty correctly in do_checkpoint and >> f2fs_write_node_page. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com> >> --- >> fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c | 4 ++++ >> fs/f2fs/node.c | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >> index cd0443d..68c723c 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/checkpoint.c >> @@ -1153,6 +1153,10 @@ static int do_checkpoint(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, >> struct cp_control *cpc) >> clear_prefree_segments(sbi, cpc); >> clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY); >> >> + /* redirty superblock if node page is updated by ->write_inode */ >> + if (get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES)) > > Need to check F2FS_DIRTY_IMETA and F2FS_DIRTY_DENTS as well?
Need to check F2FS_DIRTY_IMETA additionally? since F2FS_DIRTY_DENTS will not be updated during checkpoint. > And, if we have this, I don't think we need to worry about f2fs_lock_op() for > update_inode_page() as well. OK, I didn't find any data consistency issue related to this so far. Thanks, > > Thanks, > >> + set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY); >> + >> return 0; >> } >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c >> index 8a28800..365c6ff 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c >> @@ -1597,6 +1597,7 @@ static int f2fs_write_node_page(struct page *page, >> fio.old_blkaddr = ni.blk_addr; >> write_node_page(nid, &fio); >> set_node_addr(sbi, &ni, fio.new_blkaddr, is_fsync_dnode(page)); >> + set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY); >> dec_page_count(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES); >> up_read(&sbi->node_write); >> >> -- >> 2.7.2
