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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 5F784C43603 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32B7221D7D for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:39:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726617AbfLQBjM convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:39:12 -0500 Received: from smtp.h3c.com ([60.191.123.50]:47529 "EHLO h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726016AbfLQBjL (ORCPT ); Mon, 16 Dec 2019 20:39:11 -0500 Received: from DAG2EX08-IDC.srv.huawei-3com.com ([10.8.0.71]) by h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com with ESMTPS id xBH1cGoM097357 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:38:16 +0800 (GMT-8) (envelope-from li.kai4@h3c.com) Received: from DAG2EX07-IDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.8.0.70) by DAG2EX08-IDC.srv.huawei-3com.com (10.8.0.71) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1713.5; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:38:17 +0800 Received: from DAG2EX07-IDC.srv.huawei-3com.com ([::1]) by DAG2EX07-IDC.srv.huawei-3com.com ([fe80::c439:37f7:8e24:31c4%9]) with mapi id 15.01.1713.004; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:38:17 +0800 From: Likai To: Joseph Qi , Joseph Qi , "mark@fasheh.com" , "jlbec@evilplan.org" , "chge@linux.alibaba.com" CC: "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , "ocfs2-devel@oss.oracle.com" Subject: Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2] ocfs2: call journal flush to mark journal as empty after journal recovery when mount Thread-Topic: [Ocfs2-devel] [PATCH v2] ocfs2: call journal flush to mark journal as empty after journal recovery when mount Thread-Index: AQHVsLF+fHlMp3IiE02yjxgB9B140g== Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:38:17 +0000 Message-ID: <9ee4d5964a444d238a216e1ac0986d01@h3c.com> References: <20191212060000.930-1-li.kai4@h3c.com> <7cf9e23b-04a1-09a0-77a6-fe31f7a6a1b5@linux.alibaba.com> <57197a96b6e145bf8f992f103157cb1f@h3c.com> <6e031007-746a-76ec-e542-ca18ab830dc6@gmail.com> Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: x-originating-ip: [10.125.108.72] x-sender-location: DAG2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT MIME-Version: 1.0 X-DNSRBL: X-MAIL: h3cspam02-ex.h3c.com xBH1cGoM097357 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 2019/12/16 21:36, Joseph Qi wrote: > > On 19/12/16 20:12, Likai wrote: >> On 2019/12/16 18:02, Joseph Qi wrote: >>> On 19/12/12 14:00, Kai Li wrote: >>>> If journal is dirty when mount, it will be replayed but jbd2 sb >>>> log tail cannot be updated to mark a new start because >>>> journal->j_flag has already been set with JBD2_ABORT first >>>> in journal_init_common. When a new transaction is committed, it >>>> will be recored in block 1 first(journal->j_tail is set to 1 in >>>> journal_reset).If emergency restart happens again before journal >>>> super block is updated unfortunately, the new recorded trans will >>>> not be replayed in the next mount. >>>> >>>> The following steps describe this procedure in detail. >>>> 1. mount and touch some files >>>> 2. these transactions are committed to journal area but not checkpointed >>>> 3. emergency restart >>>> 4. mount again and its journals are replayed >>>> 5. journal super block's first s_start is 1, but its s_seq is not updated >>>> 6. touch a new file and its trans is committed but not checkpointed >>>> 7. emergency restart again >>>> 8. mount and journal is dirty, but trans committed in 6 will not be >>>> replayed. >>>> >>>> This exception happens easily when this lun is used by only one node. If it >>>> is used by multi-nodes, other node will replay its journal and its >>>> journal super block will be updated after recovery like what this patch >>>> does. >>>> >>>> ocfs2_recover_node->ocfs2_replay_journal. >>>> >>>> The following jbd2 journal can be generated by touching a new file after >>>> journal is replayed, and seq 15 is the first valid commit, but first seq >>>> is 13 in journal super block. >>>> logdump: >>>> Block 0: Journal Superblock >>>> Seq: 0 Type: 4 (JBD2_SUPERBLOCK_V2) >>>> Blocksize: 4096 Total Blocks: 32768 First Block: 1 >>>> First Commit ID: 13 Start Log Blknum: 1 >>>> Error: 0 >>>> Feature Compat: 0 >>>> Feature Incompat: 2 block64 >>>> Feature RO compat: 0 >>>> Journal UUID: 4ED3822C54294467A4F8E87D2BA4BC36 >>>> FS Share Cnt: 1 Dynamic Superblk Blknum: 0 >>>> Per Txn Block Limit Journal: 0 Data: 0 >>>> >>>> Block 1: Journal Commit Block >>>> Seq: 14 Type: 2 (JBD2_COMMIT_BLOCK) >>>> >>>> Block 2: Journal Descriptor >>>> Seq: 15 Type: 1 (JBD2_DESCRIPTOR_BLOCK) >>>> No. Blocknum Flags >>>> 0. 587 none >>>> UUID: 00000000000000000000000000000000 >>>> 1. 8257792 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID >>>> 2. 619 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID >>>> 3. 24772864 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID >>>> 4. 8257802 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID >>>> 5. 513 JBD2_FLAG_SAME_UUID JBD2_FLAG_LAST_TAG >>>> ... >>>> Block 7: Inode >>>> Inode: 8257802 Mode: 0640 Generation: 57157641 (0x3682809) >>>> FS Generation: 2839773110 (0xa9437fb6) >>>> CRC32: 00000000 ECC: 0000 >>>> Type: Regular Attr: 0x0 Flags: Valid >>>> Dynamic Features: (0x1) InlineData >>>> User: 0 (root) Group: 0 (root) Size: 7 >>>> Links: 1 Clusters: 0 >>>> ctime: 0x5de5d870 0x11104c61 -- Tue Dec 3 11:37:20.286280801 2019 >>>> atime: 0x5de5d870 0x113181a1 -- Tue Dec 3 11:37:20.288457121 2019 >>>> mtime: 0x5de5d870 0x11104c61 -- Tue Dec 3 11:37:20.286280801 2019 >>>> dtime: 0x0 -- Thu Jan 1 08:00:00 1970 >>>> ... >>>> Block 9: Journal Commit Block >>>> Seq: 15 Type: 2 (JBD2_COMMIT_BLOCK) >>>> >>>> The following is jouranl recovery log when recovering the upper jbd2 >>>> journal when mount again. >>>> syslog: >>>> [ 2265.648622] ocfs2: File system on device (252,1) was not unmounted cleanly, recovering it. >>>> [ 2265.649695] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(do_one_pass, 449): Starting recovery pass 0 >>>> [ 2265.650407] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(do_one_pass, 449): Starting recovery pass 1 >>>> [ 2265.650409] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(do_one_pass, 449): Starting recovery pass 2 >>>> [ 2265.650410] fs/jbd2/recovery.c:(jbd2_journal_recover, 278): JBD2: recovery, exit status 0, recovered transactions 13 to 13 >>>> >>>> Due to first commit seq 13 recorded in journal super is not consistent >>>> with the value recorded in block 1(seq is 14), journal recovery will be >>>> terminated before seq 15 even though it is an unbroken commit, inode >>>> 8257802 is a new file and it will be lost. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kai Li >>>> --- >>>> fs/ocfs2/journal.c | 9 +++++++++ >>>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c b/fs/ocfs2/journal.c >>>> index 1afe57f425a0..5c7a489f47b0 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/ocfs2/journal.c >>>> +++ b/fs/ocfs2/journal.c >>>> @@ -1066,6 +1066,15 @@ int ocfs2_journal_load(struct ocfs2_journal *journal, int local, int replayed) >>>> >>>> ocfs2_clear_journal_error(osb->sb, journal->j_journal, osb->slot_num); >>>> >>>> + if (replayed) { >>>> + mlog(ML_NOTICE, "journal recovery complete"); >>> I don't think this log is appropriate, or we can change it to something like: >>> "Journal is dirty, wipe it first"? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Joseph >> This log is not used to interpret journal flush's purpose and calling >> journal flush to make jbd2 super block become normal should be a >> requisite operation internally, >> maybe a mark should be better I think if necessary. >> In addition, ocfs2 prints a log like 'ocfs2: File system on device (%s) >> was not unmounted cleanly, recovering it' before, >> and journal has already been replayed in >> jbd2_journal_load->jbd2_journal_recover, this log just means that it is >> done here. >> So I don't think it is inappropriate, could you think abort my proposal >> again? >> > Not really, just think that this log has no actual meaning. > Or we can simply remove it. > > Thanks, > Joseph > Ok, simply remove it, any other suggestions? Thanks