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=-10.3 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,INCLUDES_CR_TRAILER,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, NICE_REPLY_A,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 C80F6C433DB for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:04:43 +0000 (UTC) Received: from kanga.kvack.org (kanga.kvack.org [205.233.56.17]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB68619B4 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:04:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 4DB68619B4 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) id 722356B0127; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 05:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 40) id 6F89F6B012B; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 05:04:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: int-list-linux-mm@kvack.org Received: by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix, from userid 63042) id 5C0E76B012E; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 05:04:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Delivered-To: linux-mm@kvack.org Received: from forelay.hostedemail.com (smtprelay0251.hostedemail.com [216.40.44.251]) by kanga.kvack.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4098F6B0127 for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 05:04:42 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtpin13.hostedemail.com (10.5.19.251.rfc1918.com [10.5.19.251]) by forelay01.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7869180AD82F for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:04:41 +0000 (UTC) X-FDA: 77950553562.13.F9E34A2 Received: from szxga06-in.huawei.com (szxga06-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.32]) by imf09.hostedemail.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 801E0600010D for ; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 09:04:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from DGGEMS405-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by szxga06-in.huawei.com (SkyGuard) with ESMTP id 4F4QPd0v2WzkddY; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:03:01 +0800 (CST) Received: from [10.136.110.154] (10.136.110.154) by smtp.huawei.com (10.3.19.205) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.498.0; Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:04:32 +0800 Subject: Re: [LTP] [f2fs] 02eb84b96b: ltp.swapon03.fail To: Jaegeuk Kim , Huang Jianan CC: Matthew Wilcox , Weichao Guo , , kernel test robot , , Linux Memory Management List , LKML , , References: <20210308072510.GA902@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <87h7llhnfe.fsf@suse.de> <20210309040144.GH3479805@casper.infradead.org> From: Chao Yu Message-ID: Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2021 17:04:32 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.9.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.136.110.154] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Stat-Signature: r6whfgn9kk7qdao7qicrkxs8yah3p39o X-Rspamd-Server: rspam05 X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 801E0600010D Received-SPF: none (huawei.com>: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=imf09; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from=""; helo=szxga06-in.huawei.com; client-ip=45.249.212.32 X-HE-DKIM-Result: none/none X-HE-Tag: 1616490280-262217 X-Bogosity: Ham, tests=bogofilter, spamicity=0.000000, version=1.2.4 Sender: owner-linux-mm@kvack.org Precedence: bulk X-Loop: owner-majordomo@kvack.org List-ID: On 2021/3/11 4:49, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On 03/10, Huang Jianan wrote: >> Hi Richard, >> >> On 2021/3/9 12:01, Matthew Wilcox wrote: >>> On Tue, Mar 09, 2021 at 10:23:35AM +0800, Weichao Guo wrote: >>>> Hi Richard, >>>> >>>> On 2021/3/8 19:53, Richard Palethorpe wrote: >>>>> Hello, >>>>> >>>>>> kern :err : [ 187.461914] F2FS-fs (sda1): Swapfile does not align to section >>>>>> commit 02eb84b96bc1b382dd138bf60724edbefe77b025 >>>>>> Author: huangjianan@oppo.com >>>>>> Date: Mon Mar 1 12:58:44 2021 +0800 >>>>>> f2fs: check if swapfile is section-alligned >>>>>> If the swapfile isn't created by pin and fallocate, it can't be >>>>>> guaranteed section-aligned, so it may be selected by f2fs gc. When >>>>>> gc_pin_file_threshold is reached, the address of swapfile may change, >>>>>> but won't be synchronized to swap_extent, so swap will write to wrong >>>>>> address, which will cause data corruption. >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Huang Jianan >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Guo Weichao >>>>>> Reviewed-by: Chao Yu >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim >>>>> The test uses fallocate to preallocate the swap file and writes zeros to >>>>> it. I'm not sure what pin refers to? >>>> 'pin' refers to pinned file feature in F2FS, the LBA(Logical Block Address) >>>> of a file is fixed after pinned. Without this operation before fallocate, >>>> the LBA may not align with section(F2FS GC unit), some LBA of the file may >>>> be changed by F2FS GC in some extreme cases. >>>> >>>> For this test case, how about pin the swap file before fallocate for F2FS as >>>> following: >>>> >>>> ioctl(fd, F2FS_IOC_SET_PIN_FILE, true); >>> No special ioctl should be needed. f2fs_swap_activate() should pin the >>> file, just like it converts inline inodes and disables compression. >> >> Now f2fs_swap_activate() will pin the file. The problem is that when >> f2fs_swap_activate() >> >> is executed, the file has been created and may not be section-aligned. >> >> So I think it would be better to consider aligning the swapfile during >> f2fs_swap_activate()? > > Does it make sense to reallocate blocks like > in f2fs_swap_activate(), > set_inode_flag(inode, FI_PIN_FILE); > truncate_pagecache(inode, 0); > f2fs_truncate_blocks(inode, 0, true); It will corrupt swap header info while relocating whole swapfile... > expand_inode_data(); > . >