Hi Yunlong,
On 2017/10/11 21:25, Yunlong Song wrote:
> Without this patch, it will cause all the free segments using up in some
> corner case. For example, there are 100 segments, and 20 of them are
> reserved for ovp. If 79 segments are full of data, segment 80 becomes
> CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and then delete 511 blocks. Since it is
> CURSEG segment, the __locate_dirty_segment will not update its dirty
> status. Then the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0, f2fs_gc will fail to
> get_victim, and f2fs_balance_fs will fail to trigger gc action. After
> f2fs_balance_fs returns, f2fs can continue to write data to segment 81.
> Again, segment 81 becomes CURSEG segment, write 512 blocks and delete
> 511 blocks, the dirty_segments(sbi) is 0 and f2fs_gc fail again. This
> can finally use up all the free segments and cause panic.
Should we also remove the check in locate_dirty_segment?
Thanks,
>
> Signed-off-by: Yunlong Song <yunlong.song@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 ----
> 1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index bfbcff8..0ff52d5 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -686,10 +686,6 @@ static void __locate_dirty_segment(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, unsigned int segno,
> {
> struct dirty_seglist_info *dirty_i = DIRTY_I(sbi);
>
> - /* need not be added */
> - if (IS_CURSEG(sbi, segno))
> - return;
> -
> if (!test_and_set_bit(segno, dirty_i->dirty_segmap[dirty_type]))
> dirty_i->nr_dirty[dirty_type]++;
>
>
