From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-8.1 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 454FDC3F2D0 for ; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:36:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DC26246A2; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:36:18 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="HtvmcAsQ"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="LGpaaARf" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 0DC26246A2 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j7b86-00060n-Ht; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:36:18 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1j7b80-0005yi-82 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:36:12 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To: MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=CerBuEh2QmOvhvb5krEgVe52O8ftPo/p0zzj+fVnwxI=; b=HtvmcAsQ0KJkFfmOATLnMCXTxM ZmjhR4XAz26f7NDWAwal9JQdRA6bE4JApWdeGq1bQK2i8n9Nk1Y/RGoe8D0c8BytJ/KlbKLTDWu/c OPeIhqOf8IH057oMQfCjR88CvEvrWwsSbKayzBvNOtSWeD9tBBG2UT+NUPzQoZMY4LmI=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date: Message-ID:From:References:CC:To:Subject:Sender:Reply-To:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=CerBuEh2QmOvhvb5krEgVe52O8ftPo/p0zzj+fVnwxI=; b=LGpaaARfgDSHzyckddMt5GEvs5 RGVqJBcUvjYRA3xKbLWAGVgZ77wz7GtLTSA6+kBgiVpE7+C9JdhMTEqM27x17Wj1SiW/woLgA2/Ly QlBxIK/XrPIhmUyTP9264Pn5sXrTnoup3zv1XTlPH8V3wS2f0HwhV0IkITbpInMkwc+A=; Received: from szxga04-in.huawei.com ([45.249.212.190] helo=huawei.com) by sfi-mx-4.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1j7b7w-00BrCX-Pc for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:36:12 +0000 Received: from DGGEMS407-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id 2A02FE226D94DD5082DD; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:35:43 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.134.22.195] (10.134.22.195) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.207) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.439.0; Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:35:38 +0800 To: Sahitya Tummala , Jaegeuk Kim , References: <1582799978-22277-1-git-send-email-stummala@codeaurora.org> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 16:35:37 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1582799978-22277-1-git-send-email-stummala@codeaurora.org> Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.134.22.195] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Headers-End: 1j7b7w-00BrCX-Pc Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: Fix mount failure due to SPO after a successful online resize FS X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net 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 > --- > 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, > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel