Hi,
On Thu, May 05, 2016 at 10:00:15AM +0800, Hou Pengyang wrote:
> On 2016/5/4 2:21, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >This patch modifies to retry truncating node blocks in -ENOMEM case.
> >
> Hi, Kim. in this patch, I think there is NO chance to retry for -ENOMEM.
>
> This is because if exist_written_data returns false, we can confirm that
> this inode has been released from orphan radix-tree:
> f2fs_evict_inode
> ---> remove_inode_page
> ---> truncate_node
> ---> remove_orphan_inode
> On this condition, err is 0, So it won't enter:
> if (err && err != -ENOENT)
> {
> ...
> }
> sequentially, there is no chance to truncate node blocks again.
> I miss something else?
When I initially tested fault injection, I could hit that before.
But, now I can't hit this again. :(
It seems it was gone while I updated the error flow before.
Agreed with you, and let me take your change.
BTW, I even suspect whether this leaking condition happens or not.
If f2fs_evict_inode deals with inode deletion, that inode should be an orphan
one. So, we don't need to consider that condition actually.
So, I wrote this patch as well.
I started stress tests again. :)
Thanks,
>From 8c1e4e5ca23410b8f55bbc75d64f75416d486739 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 4 May 2016 19:48:53 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: don't worry about inode leak in evict_inode
Even if an inode failed to release its blocks, it should be kept in an orphan
inode list, so it will be released later.
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/f2fs/inode.c | 16 ++--------------
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
index baf3a2a..689d691 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
@@ -377,20 +377,8 @@ no_delete:
alloc_nid_failed(sbi, inode->i_ino);
clear_inode_flag(fi, FI_FREE_NID);
}
-
- if (err && err != -ENOENT) {
- if (!exist_written_data(sbi, inode->i_ino, ORPHAN_INO)) {
- /*
- * get here because we failed to release resource
- * of inode previously, reminder our user to run fsck
- * for fixing.
- */
- set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
- f2fs_msg(sbi->sb, KERN_WARNING,
- "inode (ino:%lu) resource leak, run fsck "
- "to fix this issue!", inode->i_ino);
- }
- }
+ f2fs_bug_on(sbi, err &&
+ !exist_written_data(sbi, inode->i_ino, ORPHAN_INO));
out_clear:
fscrypt_put_encryption_info(inode, NULL);
clear_inode(inode);
--
2.6.3
>
> How about this patch?
>
> --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> @@ -345,6 +345,7 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> set_inode_flag(fi, FI_NO_ALLOC);
> i_size_write(inode, 0);
>
> +retry:
> if (F2FS_HAS_BLOCKS(inode))
> err = f2fs_truncate(inode, true);
>
> @@ -354,6 +355,11 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> f2fs_unlock_op(sbi);
> }
>
> + if (err == -ENOMEM) {
> + err = 0;
> + goto retry;
> + }
> +
> sb_end_intwrite(inode->i_sb);
> no_delete:
> stat_dec_inline_xattr(inode);
> >Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >---
> > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 7 ++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> >index f4ac851..5cccd7a 100644
> >--- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> >+++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c
> >@@ -344,7 +344,7 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode)
> > sb_start_intwrite(inode->i_sb);
> > set_inode_flag(fi, FI_NO_ALLOC);
> > i_size_write(inode, 0);
> >-
> >+retry:
> > if (F2FS_HAS_BLOCKS(inode))
> > err = f2fs_truncate(inode, true);
> >
> >@@ -374,6 +374,11 @@ no_delete:
> >
> > if (err && err != -ENOENT) {
> > if (!exist_written_data(sbi, inode->i_ino, ORPHAN_INO)) {
> >+ /* give more chances, if ENOMEM case */
> >+ if (err == -ENOMEM) {
> >+ err = 0;
> >+ goto retry;
> >+ }
> > /*
> > * get here because we failed to release resource
> > * of inode previously, reminder our user to run fsck
> >
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
