Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Mon, 27 Mar 2023 14:47:00 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To:     Baokun Li <libaokun1@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, tytso@mit.edu,
        adilger.kernel@dilger.ca, jack@suse.cz, ritesh.list@gmail.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, yi.zhang@huawei.com,
        yangerkun@huawei.com, yukuai3@huawei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: only update i_reserved_data_blocks on successful
 block allocation
Message-ID: <20230327124700.mnldh4sosp3ptbls@quack3>
References: <20230325063443.1839558-1-libaokun1@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230325063443.1839558-1-libaokun1@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Sat 25-03-23 14:34:43, Baokun Li wrote:
> In our fault injection test, we create an ext4 file, migrate it to
> non-extent based file, then punch a hole and finally trigger a WARN_ON
> in the ext4_da_update_reserve_space():
> 
> EXT4-fs warning (device sda): ext4_da_update_reserve_space:369:
> ino 14, used 11 with only 10 reserved data blocks
> 
> When writing back a non-extent based file, if we enable delalloc, the
> number of reserved blocks will be subtracted from the number of blocks
> mapped by ext4_ind_map_blocks(), and the extent status tree will be
> updated. We update the extent status tree by first removing the old
> extent_status and then inserting the new extent_status. If the block range
> we remove happens to be in an extent, then we need to allocate another
> extent_status with ext4_es_alloc_extent().
> 
>        use old    to remove   to add new
>     |----------|------------|------------|
>               old extent_status
> 
> The problem is that the allocation of a new extent_status failed due to a
> fault injection, and __es_shrink() did not get free memory, resulting in
> a return of -ENOMEM. Then do_writepages() retries after receiving -ENOMEM,
> we map to the same extent again, and the number of reserved blocks is again
> subtracted from the number of blocks in that extent. Since the blocks in
> the same extent are subtracted twice, we end up triggering WARN_ON at
> ext4_da_update_reserve_space() because used > ei->i_reserved_data_blocks.

Hum, but this second call to ext4_map_blocks() should find already allocated
blocks in the indirect block and thus should not be subtracting
ei->i_reserved_data_blocks for the second time. What am I missing?

								Honza

> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR