On Thu 14-09-23 04:12:31, 郭纯海 wrote:
> > On Wed 13-09-23 07:15:01, Chunhai Guo wrote:
> > > From the dump info, there are only two pages as shown below. One is
> > > updated and another is under writeback. Maybe f2fs counts the
> > > writeback page as a dirty one, so get_dirty_pages() got one. As you
> > > said, maybe this is unreasonable.
> > >
> > > Jaegeuk & Chao, what do you think of this?
> > >
> > >
> > > crash_32> files -p 0xE5A44678
> > > INODE NRPAGES
> > > e5a44678 2
> > >
> > > PAGE PHYSICAL MAPPING INDEX CNT FLAGS
> > > e8d0e338 641de000 e5a44810 0 5 a095
> > locked,waiters,uptodate,lru,private,writeback
> > > e8ad59a0 54528000 e5a44810 1 2 2036
> > referenced,uptodate,lru,active,private
> >
> > Indeed, incrementing pages_skipped when there's no dirty page is a bit odd.
> > That being said we could also harden requeue_inode() - in particular we could do
> > there:
> >
> > if (wbc->pages_skipped) {
> > /*
> > * Writeback is not making progress due to locked buffers.
> > * Skip this inode for now. Although having skipped pages
> > * is odd for clean inodes, it can happen for some
> > * filesystems so handle that gracefully.
> > */
> > if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL)
> > redirty_tail_locked(inode, wb);
> > else
> > inode_cgwb_move_to_attached(inode, wb);
> > }
> >
> > Does this fix your problem as well?
> >
> > Honza
>
> Thank you for your reply. Did you forget the 'return' statement? Since I encountered this issue on the 4.19 kernel and there is not inode_cgwb_move_to_attached() yet, I replaced it with inode_io_list_del_locked(). So, below is the test patch I am applying. Please have a check. By the way, the test will take some time. I will provide feedback when it is finished. Thanks.
Yeah, I forgot about the return.
> if (wbc->pages_skipped) {
> /*
> * writeback is not making progress due to locked
> * buffers. Skip this inode for now.
> */
> - redirty_tail_locked(inode, wb);
> + if (inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL)
> + redirty_tail_locked(inode, wb);
> + else
> + inode_io_list_del_locked(inode, wb);
> return;
> }
Looks good. Thanks for testing!
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
