| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <5b40ca3c-efd6-4b50-8d11-845930a0e365@kernel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 16:15:05 +0800
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
To: Zhiguo Niu <niuzhiguo84@...il.com>
Cc: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, Xiuhong Wang <xiuhong.wang.cn@...il.com>,
Xiuhong Wang <xiuhong.wang@...soc.com>, jaegeuk@...nel.org,
linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
hao_hao.wang@...soc.com, ke.wang@...soc.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] f2fs: Fix to avoid long time to shrink extent cache
On 2024/11/20 13:45, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
> Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org> 于2024年11月20日周三 11:26写道：
>>
>> On 2024/11/19 16:26, Zhiguo Niu wrote:
>>> Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org> 于2024年11月19日周二 15:50写道：
>>>>
>>>> On 2024/11/19 14:46, Xiuhong Wang wrote:
>>>>> Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org> 于2024年11月19日周二 14:05写道：
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2024/11/12 19:06, Xiuhong Wang wrote:
>>>>>>> We encountered a system hang problem based on the following
>>>>>>> experiment:
>>>>>>> There are 17 processes, 8 of which do 4k data read, write and
>>>>>>> compare tests, and 8 do 64k read, write and compare tests. Each
>>>>>>> thread writes a 256M file, and another thread writes a large file
>>>>>>> to 80% of the disk, and then keeps doing read operations, all of
>>>>>>> which are direct operations. This will cause the large file to be
>>>>>>> filled to 80% of the disk to be severely fragmented. On a 512GB
>>>>>>> device, this large file may generate a huge zombie extent tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When system shutting down, the init process needs to wait for the
>>>>>>> writeback process, and the writeback process may encounter the
>>>>>>> situation where the READ_EXTENT_CACHE space is insufficient and
>>>>>>> needs to free the zombie extent tree. The extent tree has a large
>>>>>>> number of extent nodes, it will a long free time to free, which
>>>>>>> triggers system hang.
>>>>>> > > The stack when the problem occurs is as follows:
>>>>>>> crash_arm64> bt 1
>>>>>>> PID: 1 TASK: ffffff80801a9200 CPU: 1 COMMAND: "init"
>>>>>>> #0 [ffffffc00806b9a0] __switch_to at ffffffc00810711c
>>>>>>> #1 [ffffffc00806ba00] __schedule at ffffffc0097c1c4c
>>>>>>> #2 [ffffffc00806ba60] schedule at ffffffc0097c2308
>>>>>>> #3 [ffffffc00806bab0] wb_wait_for_completion at ffffffc0086320d4
>>>>>>> #4 [ffffffc00806bb20] writeback_inodes_sb at ffffffc00863719c
>>>>>>> #5 [ffffffc00806bba0] sync_filesystem at ffffffc00863c98c
>>>>>>> #6 [ffffffc00806bbc0] f2fs_quota_off_umount at ffffffc00886fc60
>>>>>>> #7 [ffffffc00806bc20] f2fs_put_super at ffffffc0088715b4
>>>>>>> #8 [ffffffc00806bc60] generic_shutdown_super at ffffffc0085cd61c
>>>>>>> #9 [ffffffc00806bcd0] kill_f2fs_super at ffffffc00886b3dc
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> crash_arm64> bt 14997
>>>>>>> PID: 14997 TASK: ffffff8119d82400 CPU: 3 COMMAND: "kworker/u16:0"
>>>>>>> #0 [ffffffc019f8b760] __detach_extent_node at ffffffc0088d5a58
>>>>>>> #1 [ffffffc019f8b790] __release_extent_node at ffffffc0088d5970
>>>>>>> #2 [ffffffc019f8b810] f2fs_shrink_extent_tree at ffffffc0088d5c7c
>>>>>>> #3 [ffffffc019f8b8a0] f2fs_balance_fs_bg at ffffffc0088c109c
>>>>>>> #4 [ffffffc019f8b910] f2fs_write_node_pages at ffffffc0088bd4d8
>>>>>>> #5 [ffffffc019f8b990] do_writepages at ffffffc0084a0b5c
>>>>>>> #6 [ffffffc019f8b9f0] __writeback_single_inode at ffffffc00862ee28
>>>>>>> #7 [ffffffc019f8bb30] writeback_sb_inodes at ffffffc0086358c0
>>>>>>> #8 [ffffffc019f8bc10] wb_writeback at ffffffc0086362dc
>>>>>>> #9 [ffffffc019f8bcc0] wb_do_writeback at ffffffc008634910
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Process 14997 ran for too long and caused the system hang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> At this time, there are still 1086911 extent nodes in this zombie
>>>>>>> extent tree that need to be cleaned up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> crash_arm64_sprd_v8.0.3++> extent_tree.node_cnt ffffff80896cc500
>>>>>>> node_cnt = {
>>>>>>> counter = 1086911
>>>>>>> },
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The root cause of this problem is that when the f2fs_balance_fs
>>>>>>> function is called in the write process, it will determine
>>>>>>> whether to call f2fs_balance_fs_bg, but it is difficult to
>>>>>>> meet the condition of excess_cached_nats. When the
>>>>>>> f2fs_shrink_extent_tree function is called to free during
>>>>>>> f2fs_write_node_pages, there are too many extent nodes on the
>>>>>>> extent tree, which causes a loop and causes a system hang.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> To solve this problem, when calling f2fs_balance_fs, check whether
>>>>>>> the extent cache is sufficient. If not, release the zombie extent
>>>>>>> tree.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Xiuhong Wang <xiuhong.wang@...soc.com>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Zhiguo Niu <zhiguo.niu@...soc.com>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> Test the problem with the temporary versions:
>>>>>>> patch did not reproduce the problem, the patch is as follows:
>>>>>>> @@ -415,7 +415,7 @@ void f2fs_balance_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool need)
>>>>>>> f2fs_stop_checkpoint(sbi, false, STOP_CP_REASON_FAULT_INJECT);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* balance_fs_bg is able to be pending */
>>>>>>> - if (need && excess_cached_nats(sbi))
>>>>>>> + if (need)
>>>>>>> f2fs_balance_fs_bg(sbi, false);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/segment.c | 4 +++-
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>>> index 1766254279d2..390bec177567 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
>>>>>>> @@ -415,7 +415,9 @@ void f2fs_balance_fs(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, bool need)
>>>>>>> f2fs_stop_checkpoint(sbi, false, STOP_CP_REASON_FAULT_INJECT);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /* balance_fs_bg is able to be pending */
>>>>>>> - if (need && excess_cached_nats(sbi))
>>>>>>> + if (need && (excess_cached_nats(sbi) ||
>>>>>>> + !f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, READ_EXTENT_CACHE) ||
>>>>>>> + !f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, AGE_EXTENT_CACHE)))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I doubt if there is no enough memory, we may still run into
>>>>>> f2fs_shrink_extent_tree() and suffer such long time delay.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So, can we just let __free_extent_tree() break the loop once we have
>>>>>> released entries w/ target number? something like this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c | 15 ++++++++++-----
>>>>>> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
>>>>>> index 019c1f7b7fa5..38c71c1c4fb7 100644
>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
>>>>>> @@ -379,11 +379,12 @@ static struct extent_tree *__grab_extent_tree(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> static unsigned int __free_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>>> - struct extent_tree *et)
>>>>>> + struct extent_tree *et, unsigned int nr_shrink)
>>>>>> {
>>>>>> struct rb_node *node, *next;
>>>>>> struct extent_node *en;
>>>>>> unsigned int count = atomic_read(&et->node_cnt);
>>>>>> + unsigned int i = 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> node = rb_first_cached(&et->root);
>>>>>> while (node) {
>>>>>> @@ -391,6 +392,9 @@ static unsigned int __free_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
>>>>>> en = rb_entry(node, struct extent_node, rb_node);
>>>>>> __release_extent_node(sbi, et, en);
>>>>>> node = next;
>>>>>> +
>>>>>> + if (nr_shrink && ++i >= nr_shrink)
>>>>>> + break;
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return count - atomic_read(&et->node_cnt);
>>>>>> @@ -761,7 +765,7 @@ static void __update_extent_tree_range(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>> }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT))
>>>>>> - __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
>>>>>> + __free_extent_tree(sbi, et, 0);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if (et->largest_updated) {
>>>>>> et->largest_updated = false;
>>>>>> @@ -942,7 +946,8 @@ static unsigned int __shrink_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink
>>>>>> list_for_each_entry_safe(et, next, &eti->zombie_list, list) {
>>>>>> if (atomic_read(&et->node_cnt)) {
>>>>>> write_lock(&et->lock);
>>>>>> - node_cnt += __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
>>>>>> + node_cnt += __free_extent_tree(sbi, et,
>>>>>> + nr_shrink - node_cnt - tree_cnt);
>>>>>> write_unlock(&et->lock);
>>>>>> }
>>>>>> f2fs_bug_on(sbi, atomic_read(&et->node_cnt));
>>>>>> @@ -1095,7 +1100,7 @@ static unsigned int __destroy_extent_node(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> write_lock(&et->lock);
>>>>>> - node_cnt = __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
>>>>>> + node_cnt = __free_extent_tree(sbi, et, 0);
>>>>>> write_unlock(&et->lock);
>>>>>>
>>>>>> return node_cnt;
>>>>>> @@ -1117,7 +1122,7 @@ static void __drop_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, enum extent_type type)
>>>>>> return;
>>>>>>
>>>>>> write_lock(&et->lock);
>>>>>> - __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
>>>>>> + __free_extent_tree(sbi, et, 0);
>>>>>> if (type == EX_READ) {
>>>>>> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT);
>>>>>> if (et->largest.len) {
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> 2.40.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> f2fs_balance_fs_bg(sbi, false);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> if (!f2fs_is_checkpoint_ready(sbi))
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi chao,
>>>>>
>>>>> We have also considered this approach, but the problem still occurs
>>>>> after retesting.
>>>>> 1. The problem still occurs in the following call of the unmount data process.
>>>>> f2fs_put_super -> f2fs_leave_shrinker
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I guess we need to fix this path as well, however, your patch didn't
>>>> cover this path as well, am I missing something?
>>> Dear Chao,
>>> This patch version aim to shrink extent cache as early as possible on
>>> the "all write path"
>>> by "write action" -> f2fs_balance_fs -> f2fs_balance_fs_bg
>>
>> Zhiguo, thanks for explaining again.
>>
> Dear Chao,
>> However, I doubt covering all write paths is not enough, because extent
>> node can increase when f2fs_precache_extents() was called from paths
>> including fadvise/fiemap/swapon/ioc_precache_extents, and there may be
>> no writeback, so we may get no chance to call into f2fs_balance_fs_bg(),
>> e.g. there is no data update in mountpoint, or mountpoint is readonly.
> yes, Indeed it is.
>>
>>> As the comment , the "excess_cached_nats" is difficult to achieve in
>>> this scenario, and
>>
>> Another concern is, in high-end products w/ more memory, it may has less
>> chance to hit newly added condition in f2fs_balance_fs()? not sure though.
> I also agree with this.
> There is no other better idea for me(^^) excpetion for the two methods
> we discussed above.
> any good suggestions ? ^^
What do you think of this?
From 8646c28027d5b050938335066ab56abbeca799e7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2024 11:53:09 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: fix to shrink read extent node in batches
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
---
fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
1 file changed, 37 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
index 019c1f7b7fa5..0c0d05f8551a 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
@@ -379,21 +379,22 @@ static struct extent_tree *__grab_extent_tree(struct inode *inode,
}
static unsigned int __free_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
- struct extent_tree *et)
+ struct extent_tree *et, unsigned int nr_shrink)
{
struct rb_node *node, *next;
struct extent_node *en;
- unsigned int count = atomic_read(&et->node_cnt);
+ unsigned int count;
node = rb_first_cached(&et->root);
- while (node) {
+
+ for (count = 0; node && count < nr_shrink; count++) {
next = rb_next(node);
en = rb_entry(node, struct extent_node, rb_node);
__release_extent_node(sbi, et, en);
node = next;
}
- return count - atomic_read(&et->node_cnt);
+ return count;
}
static void __drop_largest_extent(struct extent_tree *et,
@@ -622,6 +623,30 @@ static struct extent_node *__insert_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
return en;
}
+static unsigned int __destroy_extent_node(struct inode *inode,
+ enum extent_type type)
+{
+ struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
+ struct extent_tree *et = F2FS_I(inode)->extent_tree[type];
+ unsigned int nr_shrink = type == EX_READ ?
+ READ_EXTENT_CACHE_SHRINK_NUMBER :
+ AGE_EXTENT_CACHE_SHRINK_NUMBER;
+ unsigned int node_cnt = 0;
+
+ if (!et || !atomic_read(&et->node_cnt))
+ return 0;
+
+ while (atomic_read(&et->node_cnt)) {
+ write_lock(&et->lock);
+ node_cnt = __free_extent_tree(sbi, et, nr_shrink);
+ write_unlock(&et->lock);
+ }
+
+ f2fs_bug_on(sbi, atomic_read(&et->node_cnt));
+
+ return node_cnt;
+}
+
static void __update_extent_tree_range(struct inode *inode,
struct extent_info *tei, enum extent_type type)
{
@@ -760,9 +785,6 @@ static void __update_extent_tree_range(struct inode *inode,
}
}
- if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT))
- __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
-
if (et->largest_updated) {
et->largest_updated = false;
updated = true;
@@ -780,6 +802,9 @@ static void __update_extent_tree_range(struct inode *inode,
out_read_extent_cache:
write_unlock(&et->lock);
+ if (is_inode_flag_set(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT))
+ __destroy_extent_node(inode, EX_READ);
+
if (updated)
f2fs_mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode, true);
}
@@ -942,7 +967,8 @@ static unsigned int __shrink_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink
list_for_each_entry_safe(et, next, &eti->zombie_list, list) {
if (atomic_read(&et->node_cnt)) {
write_lock(&et->lock);
- node_cnt += __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
+ node_cnt += __free_extent_tree(sbi, et,
+ nr_shrink - node_cnt - tree_cnt);
write_unlock(&et->lock);
}
f2fs_bug_on(sbi, atomic_read(&et->node_cnt));
@@ -1084,23 +1110,6 @@ unsigned int f2fs_shrink_age_extent_tree(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi, int nr_shrink
return __shrink_extent_tree(sbi, nr_shrink, EX_BLOCK_AGE);
}
-static unsigned int __destroy_extent_node(struct inode *inode,
- enum extent_type type)
-{
- struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
- struct extent_tree *et = F2FS_I(inode)->extent_tree[type];
- unsigned int node_cnt = 0;
-
- if (!et || !atomic_read(&et->node_cnt))
- return 0;
-
- write_lock(&et->lock);
- node_cnt = __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
- write_unlock(&et->lock);
-
- return node_cnt;
-}
-
void f2fs_destroy_extent_node(struct inode *inode)
{
__destroy_extent_node(inode, EX_READ);
@@ -1109,7 +1118,6 @@ void f2fs_destroy_extent_node(struct inode *inode)
static void __drop_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, enum extent_type type)
{
- struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi = F2FS_I_SB(inode);
struct extent_tree *et = F2FS_I(inode)->extent_tree[type];
bool updated = false;
@@ -1117,7 +1125,6 @@ static void __drop_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, enum extent_type type)
return;
write_lock(&et->lock);
- __free_extent_tree(sbi, et);
if (type == EX_READ) {
set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NO_EXTENT);
if (et->largest.len) {
@@ -1126,6 +1133,9 @@ static void __drop_extent_tree(struct inode *inode, enum extent_type type)
}
}
write_unlock(&et->lock);
+
+ __destroy_extent_node(inode, type);
+
if (updated)
f2fs_mark_inode_dirty_sync(inode, true);
}
--
2.40.1
From 3a1b7ec606d6211b2eaf72d148ebe52d38a0bf59 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Nov 2024 15:37:22 +0800
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] f2fs: add a sysfs node to limit max read extent count
per-inode
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>
---
Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs | 6 ++++++
fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c | 5 ++++-
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 4 ++++
fs/f2fs/sysfs.c | 7 +++++++
4 files changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs
index 513296bb6f29..3e1630c70d8a 100644
--- a/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs
+++ b/Documentation/ABI/testing/sysfs-fs-f2fs
@@ -822,3 +822,9 @@ Description: It controls the valid block ratio threshold not to trigger excessiv
for zoned deivces. The initial value of it is 95(%). F2FS will stop the
background GC thread from intiating GC for sections having valid blocks
exceeding the ratio.
+
+What: /sys/fs/f2fs/<disk>/max_read_extent_count
+Date: November 2024
+Contact: "Chao Yu" <chao@...nel.org>
+Description: It controls max read extent count for per-inode, the value of threshold
+ is 10240 by default.
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
index 0c0d05f8551a..b08563ad010d 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/extent_cache.c
@@ -717,7 +717,9 @@ static void __update_extent_tree_range(struct inode *inode,
}
if (end < org_end && (type != EX_READ ||
- org_end - end >= F2FS_MIN_EXTENT_LEN)) {
+ (org_end - end >= F2FS_MIN_EXTENT_LEN &&
+ atomic_read(&et->node_cnt) <
+ sbi->max_read_extent_count))) {
if (parts) {
__set_extent_info(&ei,
end, org_end - end,
@@ -1209,6 +1211,7 @@ void f2fs_init_extent_cache_info(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
sbi->hot_data_age_threshold = DEF_HOT_DATA_AGE_THRESHOLD;
sbi->warm_data_age_threshold = DEF_WARM_DATA_AGE_THRESHOLD;
sbi->last_age_weight = LAST_AGE_WEIGHT;
+ sbi->max_read_extent_count = DEF_MAX_READ_EXTENT_COUNT;
}
int __init f2fs_create_extent_cache(void)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
index b65b023a588a..6f2cbf4c5740 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
@@ -635,6 +635,9 @@ enum {
#define DEF_HOT_DATA_AGE_THRESHOLD 262144
#define DEF_WARM_DATA_AGE_THRESHOLD 2621440
+/* default max read extent count per inode */
+#define DEF_MAX_READ_EXTENT_COUNT 10240
+
/* extent cache type */
enum extent_type {
EX_READ,
@@ -1619,6 +1622,7 @@ struct f2fs_sb_info {
/* for extent tree cache */
struct extent_tree_info extent_tree[NR_EXTENT_CACHES];
atomic64_t allocated_data_blocks; /* for block age extent_cache */
+ unsigned int max_read_extent_count; /* max read extent count per inode */
/* The threshold used for hot and warm data seperation*/
unsigned int hot_data_age_threshold;
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c b/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
index bdbf24db667b..d1356c656cac 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/sysfs.c
@@ -787,6 +787,13 @@ static ssize_t __sbi_store(struct f2fs_attr *a,
return count;
}
+ if (!strcmp(a->attr.name, "max_read_extent_count")) {
+ if (t > UINT_MAX)
+ return -EINVAL;
+ *ui = (unsigned int)t;
+ return count;
+ }
+
if (!strcmp(a->attr.name, "ipu_policy")) {
if (t >= BIT(F2FS_IPU_MAX))
return -EINVAL;
--
2.40.1
> thanks！
>>
>> + if (need && (excess_cached_nats(sbi) ||
>> + !f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, READ_EXTENT_CACHE) ||
>> + !f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, AGE_EXTENT_CACHE)))
>>
>> I mean will f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, {READ,AGE}_EXTENT_CACHE)
>> return true if available memory is sufficient?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> trigger the issue in path f2fs_write_node_pages->f2fs_balance_fs_bg(is
>>> called directly here).
>>> At that time, there were already a lot of extent node cnt.
>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>> 2. Writing back the inode in the normal write-back process will
>>>>> release the extent cache, and the problem still occurs. The stack is
>>>>> as follows:
>>>>
>>>> Ditto,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> [H 103098.974356] c2 [<ffffffc008aee8a4>] (rb_erase+0x204/0x334)
>>>>> [H 103098.974389] c2 [<ffffffc0088f8fd0>] (__release_extent_node+0xc8/0x168)
>>>>> [H 103098.974425] c2 [<ffffffc0088fad74>]
>>>>> (f2fs_update_extent_tree_range+0x4a0/0x724)
>>>>> [H 103098.974459] c2 [<ffffffc0088fa8c0>] (f2fs_update_extent_cache+0x19c/0x1b0)
>>>>> [H 103098.974495] c2 [<ffffffc0088edc70>] (f2fs_outplace_write_data+0x74/0xf0)
>>>>> [H 103098.974525] c2 [<ffffffc0088ca834>] (f2fs_do_write_data_page+0x3e4/0x6c8)
>>>>> [H 103098.974552] c2 [<ffffffc0088cb150>]
>>>>> (f2fs_write_single_data_page+0x478/0xab0)
>>>>> [H 103098.974574] c2 [<ffffffc0088d0bd0>] (f2fs_write_cache_pages+0x454/0xaac)
>>>>> [H 103098.974596] c2 [<ffffffc0088d0698>] (__f2fs_write_data_pages+0x40c/0x4f0)
>>>>> [H 103098.974617] c2 [<ffffffc0088cc860>] (f2fs_write_data_pages+0x30/0x40)
>>>>> [H 103098.974645] c2 [<ffffffc0084c0e00>] (do_writepages+0x18c/0x3e8)
>>>>> [H 103098.974678] c2 [<ffffffc0086503cc>] (__writeback_single_inode+0x48/0x498)
>>>>> [H 103098.974720] c2 [<ffffffc0086562c8>] (writeback_sb_inodes+0x454/0x9b0)
>>>>> [H 103098.974754] c2 [<ffffffc008655de8>] (__writeback_inodes_wb+0x198/0x224)
>>>>> [H 103098.974788] c2 [<ffffffc008656d0c>] (wb_writeback+0x1c0/0x698)
>>>>> [H 103098.974819] c2 [<ffffffc008655614>] (wb_do_writeback+0x420/0x54c)
>>>>> [H 103098.974853] c2 [<ffffffc008654f50>] (wb_workfn+0xe4/0x388)
>>>>
>>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists