On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 08:40:56AM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 2/23/21 7:42 AM, Gao Xiang wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 08:17:28AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 08:46:49AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: > >>> On Sat, Mar 24, 2018 at 09:20:49AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > >>>> On Wed, Mar 07, 2018 at 05:33:48PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote: > >>>>> Now that unlinked inode recovery is done outside of > >>>>> log recovery, there is no need to dirty the log on > >>>>> snapshots just to handle unlinked inodes. This means > >>>>> that readonly snapshots can be mounted without requiring > >>>>> -o ro,norecovery to avoid the log replay that can't happen > >>>>> on a readonly block device. > >>>>> > >>>>> (unlinked inodes will just hang out in the agi buckets until > >>>>> the next writable mount) > >>>> > >>>> FWIW I put these two in a test kernel to see what would happen and > >>>> generic/311 failures popped up. It looked like the _check_scratch_fs > >>>> found incorrect block counts on the snapshot(?) > >>>> > >>> > >>> Interesting. Just a wild guess, but perhaps it has something to do with > >>> lazy sb accounting..? I see we call xfs_initialize_perag_data() when > >>> mounting an unclean fs. > >> > >> The freeze is calls xfs_log_sbcount() which should update the > >> superblock counters from the in-memory counters and write them to > >> disk. > >> > >> If they are out, I'm guessing it's because the in-memory per-ag > >> reservations are not being returned to the global pool before the > >> in-memory counters are summed during a freeze.... > >> > >> Cheers, > >> > >> Dave. > >> -- > >> Dave Chinner > >> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > > > I spend some time on tracking this problem. I've made a quick > > modification with per-AG reservation and tested with generic/311 > > it seems fine. My current question is that how such fsfreezed > > images (with clean mount) work with old kernels without [PATCH 1/1]? > > I'm afraid orphan inodes won't be freed with such old kernels.... > > Am I missing something? > > It's true, a snapshot created with these patches will not have their unlinked > inodes processed if mounted on an older kernel. I'm not sure how much of a > problem that is; the filesystem is not inconsistent, but some space is lost, > I guess. I'm not sure it's common to take a snapshot of a frozen filesystem on > one kernel and then move it back to an older kernel. Maybe others have > thoughts on this. My current thought might be only to write clean mount without unlinked inodes when freezing, but leave log dirty if any unlinked inodes exist as Brian mentioned before and don't handle such case (?). I'd like to hear more comments about this as well. Thanks, Gao Xiang > > -Eric >
