On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 3:05 PM, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Filipe David Manana wrote: > >> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 14:34:35 +0000 >> From: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> >> To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> >> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>, >> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >> fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] generic/066: add _require_metadata_replay >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 1:10 PM, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, Filipe David Manana wrote: >> > >> >> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2015 11:43:36 +0000 >> >> From: Filipe David Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> Cc: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>, >> >> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, >> >> fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 2/2] generic/066: add _require_metadata_replay >> >> >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 17:23:47 -0800 >> >> >> From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Cc: fstests@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, >> >> >> Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>, Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx>, >> >> >> Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] generic/066: add _require_metadata_replay >> >> >> >> >> >> This patch adds _require_metadata_replay to detect whether or not filesystem >> >> >> supports metadata replay. >> >> >> >> >> >> This should be used when: >> >> >> >> >> >> 1. create file A >> >> >> 2. write file A >> >> >> 3. fsync file A >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. write file A >> >> >> >> >> >> 5. create file B >> >> >> 6. fsync file B >> >> >> 7. crash! >> >> >> >> >> >> In this case, if filesystem supports metadata_replay, file A's data written >> >> >> by #4 should be recovered. >> >> > >> >> > What ? No it should not! file A was never fsync after the last >> >> > write, so there is no guarantee that we'll have the new content. >> >> > "Metadata replay" suggests that we only replay metadata, not data >> >> > and that's what file systems usually do with they journals, cows, >> >> > and so on... >> >> > >> >> > But this test is not about writing to a file, it's about changing >> >> > file xattr. And while extended attributes are metadata, they are >> >> > _not_ file system metadata and as such I think it can be very well >> >> > treated as data. Hence explicit fsync is needed to make sure it's >> >> > written to the disk. >> >> > >> >> > Now let's look at the test itself: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > echo "hello world!" >> $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar >> >> > $XFS_IO_PROG -c "fsync" $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar >> >> > $SETFATTR_PROG -x user.attr1 $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar >> >> > ln $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar_link >> >> > touch $SCRATCH_MNT/qwerty >> >> > $XFS_IO_PROG -c "fsync" $SCRATCH_MNT/qwerty >> >> > >> >> > _crash_and_mount >> >> > >> >> > # Now only the xattr with name user.attr3 should be set in our file. >> >> > echo "xattr names and values after second fsync log replay:" >> >> > $GETFATTR_PROG --absolute-names --dump $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar | >> >> > _filter_scratch >> >> > >> >> > No it should not have only attr3 because $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar was >> >> > never fsynced after attr3 removal. If the internal design of the >> >> > file system accidentally synces unrelated xattrs on unrelated fsync, >> >> > than that's fine, but that's not what we need to test for at all >> >> > because it might not be guaranteed by all the file systems. So I >> >> > think this last part of the test is rather pointless. So I think >> >> > this patch is not needed as well. >> >> > >> >> > Or am I missing something Filipe ? >> >> >> >> So that second part of the test, essentially comes from this ordered >> >> metadata dependency explanation Dave gave me recently on another >> >> thread: >> >> >> >> http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg42086.html >> > >> > It's interesting, but it really applies only to metadata updates >> > since really we normally only journal metadata. We do not >> > consider extended attributes to be metadata, do we ? >> > >> >> >> >> Yes, I'm considering xattrs as metadata (even though they can be seen >> >> as data as well). This behaviour I'm testing for applies to ext3/4 and >> >> xfs for example (and apparently intentional, since the test passes on >> >> these filesystems). >> > >> > Ok, I am confused. Clearly ext4, nor xfs consider xattrs metadata >> > which can be tested simply by attaching xattr and crashing the file >> > system immediately afterwards - the new xattr will not be there - >> > that's expected for data, but unexpected for metadata. >> >> Hum, my testing (on a 3.19 kernel) for both ext4 and xfs shows me >> something different. >> Perhaps we're testing differently. >> >> So I just replaced the the line that adds a hard link to our inode with: >> >> $SETFATTR_PROG -n user.attr4 -v val4 $SCRATCH_MNT/foobar >> >> Then after the crash + mount, the new xattr is listed (with the >> correct value val4). >> I also tried the variants of leaving the 'ln' command and adding the >> xattr either right before or right after the 'ln' command. For both >> cases, the new xattr was there after crash + mount. >> >> How did you test? > > Simply created file, fsync, added xattr and crash. But I think I am > confusing consistency vs. persistence again :( Ah in that case it's normal. You need to be sure the journal/log is persisted by fsyncing the other file (named 'qwerty'). For the xattr removal case, if you don't fsync 'qwerty', the xattr 'user.attr1' will still be there for file 'foobar' after crash + mount. > >> >> > >> > Now the fact that it works might be just a coincidence. Btw in the >> > discussion Dave never mentioned xattr, he only talks about inode >> > size and extent list changes which makes sense since those are >> > metadata and it's expected to be "stabilised" as he very well >> > described. I just do not think this applies to this case. >> >> Correct, I assumed his explanation applied to metadata in general and >> I'm considering xattrs as metadata (though as I said before, it's not >> unreasonable to consider them as data as well imho). > > Well that's the thing I am not really sure about. Can not find any > documentation about this anywhere at all. > > -Lukas > >> >> > >> > Also I think that his wording that fsync on the file implies fsync >> > on the directory is unfortunate because it does not. However it >> > implies that the directory will actually be stabilised as well due >> > to journalling. But the results are the same. >> > >> > Anyway, maybe Dave can sprinkle some of his wisdom over this... >> >> Yes :) >> >> Thanks >> >> > >> > Thanks! >> > -Lukas >> > >> >> >> >> Thanks >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Thanks! >> >> > -Lukas >> >> > >> >> >> Otherwise, file A is recovered to #3. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> Cc: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@xxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> >> --- >> >> >> common/rc | 18 ++++++++++++++++++ >> >> >> tests/generic/066 | 2 +- >> >> >> 2 files changed, 19 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> >> >> >> >> diff --git a/common/rc b/common/rc >> >> >> index 1ed9df5..e6e8d1f 100644 >> >> >> --- a/common/rc >> >> >> +++ b/common/rc >> >> >> @@ -2372,6 +2372,24 @@ _require_metadata_journaling() >> >> >> esac >> >> >> } >> >> >> >> >> >> +# Does this filesystem support metadata replay? >> >> >> +# Filesystem is able to recover metadata which were not written by fsync >> >> >> +# exlicitly. But another fsync'ed metadata should be followed by them. >> >> >> +_require_metadata_replay() >> >> >> +{ >> >> >> + _require_metadata_journaling $1 >> >> >> + >> >> >> + case "$FSTYP" in >> >> >> + f2fs) >> >> >> + # f2fs supports metadata_journaling, but does not recover any >> >> >> + # intermediate metadata which was not fsync'ed explicitly. >> >> >> + _notrun "$FSTYP does not support metadata replay" >> >> >> + ;; >> >> >> + *) >> >> >> + ;; >> >> >> + esac >> >> >> +} >> >> >> + >> >> >> # Does fiemap support? >> >> >> _require_fiemap() >> >> >> { >> >> >> diff --git a/tests/generic/066 b/tests/generic/066 >> >> >> index cb36506..3fefda4 100755 >> >> >> --- a/tests/generic/066 >> >> >> +++ b/tests/generic/066 >> >> >> @@ -61,7 +61,7 @@ _need_to_be_root >> >> >> _require_scratch >> >> >> _require_dm_flakey >> >> >> _require_attrs >> >> >> -_require_metadata_journaling $SCRATCH_DEV >> >> >> +_require_metadata_replay $SCRATCH_DEV >> >> >> >> >> >> _crash_and_mount() >> >> >> { >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> > Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored >> >> > by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all >> >> > things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to >> >> > news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the >> >> > conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/ >> >> > _______________________________________________ >> >> > Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list >> >> > Linux-f2fs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >> >> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- Filipe David Manana, "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe fstests" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
