Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 24 May 2022 14:29:49 +0800 | Subject | Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] f2fs: change the current atomic write way | From | Chao Yu <> |
| |
On 2022/5/24 2:03, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 05/22, Chao Yu wrote: >> On 2022/4/29 2:18, Daeho Jeong wrote:> + *old_addr = dn.data_blkaddr; >>> + f2fs_truncate_data_blocks_range(&dn, 1); >>> + dec_valid_block_count(sbi, F2FS_I(inode)->cow_inode, count); >>> + inc_valid_block_count(sbi, inode, &count); >>> + f2fs_replace_block(sbi, &dn, dn.data_blkaddr, new_addr, >>> + ni.version, true, false); >> >> My concern is, if cow_inode's data was persisted into previous checkpoint, >> and then f2fs_replace_block() will update SSA from cow_inode to inode? > > SSA for original file is intact, so we'll see the orignal file's block addresses > and SSA, if we flush cow_inode's SSA after committing the atomic writes? > It'd be good to flush any SSA for cow_inode, since we'll truncate > cow_inode after powercut by the ohphan recovery?
I think it's safe for recovery flow, but before that, fsck will report inconsistent status during checking orphan atomic_write inode.
Thanks,
> >> it will cause inconsistent status of last valid checkpoint? Or am I mssing >> something? >> >>> - f2fs_submit_merged_write_cond(sbi, inode, NULL, 0, DATA); >>> + new = f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc(revoke_entry_slab, GFP_NOFS, >>> + true, NULL); >>> + if (!new) { >>> + f2fs_put_dnode(&dn); >>> + ret = -ENOMEM; >>> + goto out; >> >> It doesn't need to handle failure of f2fs_kmem_cache_alloc() >> due to nofail parameter is true. >> >> Thanks, >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list >> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
| |