On Fri, Nov 25, 2022 at 12:09:39PM +0000, Srikanth C S wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Sent: 23 November 2022 05:53 PM > > To: Srikanth C S <srikanth.c.s@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Darrick Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom <rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@xxxxxxxxxx>; > > Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > Subject: Re: [External] : Re: [PATCH v3] fsck.xfs: mount/umount xfs fs to > > replay log before running xfs_repair > > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 11:40:53AM +0000, Srikanth C S wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I resent the same patch as I did not see any review comments. > > > > Unless I'm looking at the wrong patch, there were comments on your > > previous > > submission: > > > > https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://lore.kernel.org/linux- > > xfs/Y2ie54fcHDx5bcG4@B-P7TQMD6M- > > 0146.local/T/*t__;Iw!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!J2Z- > > 2NThyyDm__z9ivhioF9QoHsaHh4Tk733jtNbVMPGeA2vbmbw3h4ZGxOywQF > > v_lA1Zs_jsUgr$ > > > > Am I missing something? Err.... whose comments, Joseph's or Gao's? > All the previous comments addressing this patch were about having > journal replay code in the userspace. But Darricks comments indicate > that this requires making the log endian safe because of kernel's > inability to recover a log from a platform with a different > endianness. > > So I am still wondering on how to proceed with this patch. Any > comments would be helpful. Same here, though the long holiday weekend probably didn't help. --D > > Also, if you are sending the same patch, you can 'flag' it as a resend, so, it's > > easier to identify you are simply resending the same patch. You can do it by > > appending/prepending 'RESEND', to the patch tag: > > > > [RESEND PATCH] <subject> > Thanks for the info. Didn't know this. > > > > Cheers. > > > > > > > > -Srikanth > > > > > > > > __________________________________________________________ > > ________ > > > > > > From: Carlos Maiolino <cem@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2022 2:06 PM > > > To: Srikanth C S <srikanth.c.s@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Darrick Wong > > > <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>; Rajesh Sivaramasubramaniom > > > <rajesh.sivaramasubramaniom@xxxxxxxxxx>; Junxiao Bi > > > <junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>; david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > > <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > Subject: [External] : Re: [PATCH v3] fsck.xfs: mount/umount xfs fs to > > > replay log before running xfs_repair > > > > > > Hi. > > > Did you plan to resend V3 again, or is this supposed to be V4? > > > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 12:00:50PM +0530, Srikanth C S wrote: > > > > After a recent data center crash, we had to recover root filesystems > > > > on several thousands of VMs via a boot time fsck. Since these > > > > machines are remotely manageable, support can inject the kernel > > > > command line with 'fsck.mode=force fsck.repair=yes' to kick off > > > > xfs_repair if the machine won't come up or if they suspect there > > > > might be deeper issues with latent errors in the fs metadata, which > > > > is what they did to try to get everyone running ASAP while > > > > anticipating any future problems. But, fsck.xfs does not address the > > > > journal replay in case of a crash. > > > > > > > > fsck.xfs does xfs_repair -e if fsck.mode=force is set. It is > > > > possible that when the machine crashes, the fs is in inconsistent > > > > state with the journal log not yet replayed. This can drop the > > > machine > > > > into the rescue shell because xfs_fsck.sh does not know how to clean > > > the > > > > log. Since the administrator told us to force repairs, address the > > > > deficiency by cleaning the log and rerunning xfs_repair. > > > > > > > > Run xfs_repair -e when fsck.mode=force and repair=auto or yes. > > > > Replay the logs only if fsck.mode=force and fsck.repair=yes. For > > > > other option -fa and -f drop to the rescue shell if repair detects > > > > any corruptions. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Srikanth C S <srikanth.c.s@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > --- > > > > fsck/xfs_fsck.sh | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- > > > > 1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh b/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh > > > > index 6af0f22..62a1e0b 100755 > > > > --- a/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh > > > > +++ b/fsck/xfs_fsck.sh > > > > @@ -31,10 +31,12 @@ repair2fsck_code() { > > > > > > > > AUTO=false > > > > FORCE=false > > > > +REPAIR=false > > > > while getopts ":aApyf" c > > > > do > > > > case $c in > > > > - a|A|p|y) AUTO=true;; > > > > + a|A|p) AUTO=true;; > > > > + y) REPAIR=true;; > > > > f) FORCE=true;; > > > > esac > > > > done > > > > @@ -64,7 +66,32 @@ fi > > > > > > > > if $FORCE; then > > > > xfs_repair -e $DEV > > > > - repair2fsck_code $? > > > > + error=$? > > > > + if [ $error -eq 2 ] && [ $REPAIR = true ]; then > > > > + echo "Replaying log for $DEV" > > > > + mkdir -p /tmp/repair_mnt || exit 1 > > > > + for x in $(cat /proc/cmdline); do > > > > + case $x in > > > > + root=*) > > > > + ROOT="${x#root=}" > > > > + ;; > > > > + rootflags=*) > > > > + ROOTFLAGS="-o > > > ${x#rootflags=}" > > > > + ;; > > > > + esac > > > > + done > > > > + test -b "$ROOT" || ROOT=$(blkid -t "$ROOT" -o device) > > > > + if [ $(basename $DEV) = $(basename $ROOT) ]; then > > > > + mount $DEV /tmp/repair_mnt $ROOTFLAGS || exit > > > 1 > > > > + else > > > > + mount $DEV /tmp/repair_mnt || exit 1 > > > > + fi > > > > + umount /tmp/repair_mnt > > > > + xfs_repair -e $DEV > > > > + error=$? > > > > + rm -d /tmp/repair_mnt > > > > + fi > > > > + repair2fsck_code $error > > > > exit $? > > > > fi > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 1.8.3.1 > > > -- > > > Carlos Maiolino > > > > -- > > Carlos Maiolino > > Regards, > Srikanth
