Hi Carlos,
On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 04:10:18PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 05:10:23PM +0800, Gao Xiang wrote:
> > There are many paths which could trigger xfs_log_sb(), e.g.
> > xfs_bmap_add_attrfork()
> > -> xfs_log_sb()
> > , which overrided on-disk fdblocks by in-core per-CPU fdblocks.
> >
> > However, for !lazysbcount cases, on-disk fdblocks is actually updated
> > by xfs_trans_apply_sb_deltas(), and generally it isn't equal to
> > in-core fdblocks due to xfs_reserve_block() or whatever, see the
> > comment in xfs_unmountfs().
> >
> > It could be observed by the following steps reported by Zorro [1]:
> >
> > 1. mkfs.xfs -f -l lazy-count=0 -m crc=0 $dev
> > 2. mount $dev $mnt
> > 3. fsstress -d $mnt -p 100 -n 1000 (maybe need more or less io load)
> > 4. umount $mnt
> > 5. xfs_repair -n $dev
> >
> > yet due to commit f46e5a174655("xfs: fold sbcount quiesce logging
> > into log covering"),
>
> > ... xfs_sync_sb() will be triggered even !lazysbcount
> > but xfs_log_need_covered() case when xfs_unmountfs(), so hard to
> > reproduce on kernel 5.12+.
>
> I think this could be rephrased, but I am not native english-speaker either, so
> I can't say much. Maybe...
>
> "xfs_sync_sb() will be triggered if no log covering is needed and !lazysbcount."
Thanks for your suggestion, I will update the description as...
"xfs_sync_sb() will also be triggered if log covering is needed
and !lazysbcount."
>
> > Reported-by: Zorro Lang <zlang@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Gao Xiang <hsiangkao@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c | 8 +++++++-
> > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > index 60e6d255e5e2..423dada3f64c 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_sb.c
> > @@ -928,7 +928,13 @@ xfs_log_sb(
> >
> > mp->m_sb.sb_icount = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_icount);
> > mp->m_sb.sb_ifree = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_ifree);
> > - mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_fdblocks);
> > + if (!xfs_sb_version_haslazysbcount(&mp->m_sb)) {
> > + struct xfs_dsb *dsb = bp->b_addr;
> > +
> > + mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks = be64_to_cpu(dsb->sb_fdblocks);
> > + } else {
> > + mp->m_sb.sb_fdblocks = percpu_counter_sum(&mp->m_fdblocks);
> > + }
>
> The patch looks good to me, feel free to add:
>
> Reviewed-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
Thanks for your review!
Thanks,
Gao Xiang
> --
> Carlos
>
