Re: [PATCH v2] f2fs: Fix system crash due to lack of free space in LFS
From: Chao Yu
Date: Tue Apr 04 2023 - 20:35:32 EST
On 2023/4/5 5:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 04/04, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2023/4/4 1:01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
On 04/01, Chao Yu wrote:
On 2023/3/21 8:12, Yonggil Song wrote:
When f2fs tries to checkpoint during foreground gc in LFS mode, system
crash occurs due to lack of free space if the amount of dirty node and
dentry pages generated by data migration exceeds free space.
The reproduction sequence is as follows.
- 20GiB capacity block device (null_blk)
- format and mount with LFS mode
- create a file and write 20,000MiB
- 4k random write on full range of the file
RIP: 0010:new_curseg+0x48a/0x510 [f2fs]
Code: 55 e7 f5 89 c0 48 0f af c3 48 8b 5d c0 48 c1 e8 20 83 c0 01 89 43 6c 48 83 c4 28 5b 41 5c 41 5d 41 5e 41 5f 5d c3 cc cc cc cc <0f> 0b f0 41 80 4f 48 04 45 85 f6 0f 84 ba fd ff ff e9 ef fe ff ff
RSP: 0018:ffff977bc397b218 EFLAGS: 00010246
RAX: 00000000000027b9 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00000000000027c0
RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00000000000027b9 RDI: ffff8c25ab4e74f8
RBP: ffff977bc397b268 R08: 00000000000027b9 R09: ffff8c29e4a34b40
R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffff977bc397b0d8 R12: 0000000000000000
R13: ffff8c25b4dd81a0 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: ffff8c2f667f9000
FS: 0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff8c344ec80000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 000000c00055d000 CR3: 0000000e30810003 CR4: 00000000003706e0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
<TASK>
allocate_segment_by_default+0x9c/0x110 [f2fs]
f2fs_allocate_data_block+0x243/0xa30 [f2fs]
? __mod_lruvec_page_state+0xa0/0x150
do_write_page+0x80/0x160 [f2fs]
f2fs_do_write_node_page+0x32/0x50 [f2fs]
__write_node_page+0x339/0x730 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_node_pages+0x5a6/0x780 [f2fs]
block_operations+0x257/0x340 [f2fs]
f2fs_write_checkpoint+0x102/0x1050 [f2fs]
f2fs_gc+0x27c/0x630 [f2fs]
? folio_mark_dirty+0x36/0x70
f2fs_balance_fs+0x16f/0x180 [f2fs]
This patch adds checking whether free sections are enough before checkpoint
during gc.
Signed-off-by: Yonggil Song <yonggil.song@xxxxxxxxxxx>
---
fs/f2fs/gc.c | 10 ++++++++--
fs/f2fs/gc.h | 2 ++
fs/f2fs/segment.h | 27 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----
3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
index 4546e01b2ee0..dd563866d3c9 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
@@ -1773,6 +1773,7 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
.iroot = RADIX_TREE_INIT(gc_list.iroot, GFP_NOFS),
};
unsigned int skipped_round = 0, round = 0;
+ unsigned int need_lower = 0, need_upper = 0;
trace_f2fs_gc_begin(sbi->sb, gc_type, gc_control->no_bg_gc,
gc_control->nr_free_secs,
@@ -1858,8 +1859,13 @@ int f2fs_gc(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, struct f2fs_gc_control *gc_control)
}
}
- /* Write checkpoint to reclaim prefree segments */
- if (free_sections(sbi) < NR_CURSEG_PERSIST_TYPE &&
+ ret = get_need_secs(sbi, &need_lower, &need_upper);
Can we avoid calling has_curseg_enough_space() for this case?
Why? :P
We won't check the return value of get_need_secs(), so it's not needed to call
has_curseg_enough_space() in get_need_secs() in this path, right?
I see. Thanks. I think we can do like this:
Signed-off-by: Yonggil Song <yonggil.song@xxxxxxxxxxx>
[Jaegeuk Kim: code clean-up]
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@xxxxxxxxxx>
Better, thanks! :)
Reviewed-by: Chao Yu <chao@xxxxxxxxxx>
Thanks,