Re: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: Fix mount failure due to SPO after a successful online resize FS

[Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>]

Hi Sahitya,

Good catch.

On 2020/2/27 18:39, Sahitya Tummala wrote:
> Even though online resize is successfully done, a SPO immediately
> after resize, still causes below error in the next mount.
> 
> [   11.294650] F2FS-fs (sda8): Wrong user_block_count: 2233856
> [   11.300272] F2FS-fs (sda8): Failed to get valid F2FS checkpoint
> 
> This is because after FS metadata is updated in update_fs_metadata()
> if the SBI_IS_DIRTY is not dirty, then CP will not be done to reflect
> the new user_block_count.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Sahitya Tummala <stummala@codeaurora.org>
> ---
>  fs/f2fs/gc.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> index a92fa49..a14a75f 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> @@ -1577,6 +1577,7 @@ int f2fs_resize_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, __u64 block_count)
>  
>  	update_fs_metadata(sbi, -secs);
>  	clear_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_RESIZEFS);

Need a barrier here to keep order in between above code and set_sbi_flag(DIRTY)?

> +	set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_IS_DIRTY);
>  	err = f2fs_sync_fs(sbi->sb, 1);
>  	if (err) {
>  		update_fs_metadata(sbi, secs);

Do we need to add clear_sbi_flag(, SBI_IS_DIRTY) into update_fs_metadata(), so above
path can be covered as well?

Thanks,

>