Searched hist:c8cc6341653721b54760480b0d0d9b5f09b46741 (Results 1 – 1 of 1) sorted by relevance
| /openbmc/linux/fs/btrfs/ |
| H A D | ctree.c | diff 5de865eebb8330eee19c37b31fb6f315a09d4273 Fri Dec 20 09:17:46 CST 2013 Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com> Btrfs: fix tree mod logging
While running the test btrfs/004 from xfstests in a loop, it failed
about 1 time out of 20 runs in my desktop. The failure happened in
the backref walking part of the test, and the test's error message was
like this:
btrfs/004 93s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad)
--- tests/btrfs/004.out 2013-11-26 18:25:29.263333714 +0000
+++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad 2013-12-10 15:25:10.327518516 +0000
@@ -1,3 +1,8 @@
QA output created by 004
*** test backref walking
-*** done
+unexpected output from
+ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal logical-resolve -P 141512704 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1
+expected inum: 405, expected address: 454656, file: /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1/snap1/p0/d6/d3d/d156/fce, got:
+
...
(Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
Ran: btrfs/004
Failures: btrfs/004
Failed 1 of 1 tests
But immediately after the test finished, the btrfs inspect-internal command
returned the expected output:
$ btrfs inspect-internal logical-resolve -P 141512704 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1
inode 405 offset 454656 root 258
inode 405 offset 454656 root 5
It turned out this was because the btrfs_search_old_slot() calls performed
during backref walking (backref.c:__resolve_indirect_ref) were not finding
anything. The reason for this turned out to be that the tree mod logging
code was not logging some node multi-step operations atomically, therefore
btrfs_search_old_slot() callers iterated often over an incomplete tree that
wasn't fully consistent with any tree state from the past. Besides missing
items, this often (but not always) resulted in -EIO errors during old slot
searches, reported in dmesg like this:
[ 4299.933936] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 4299.933949] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 23190 at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1343 btrfs_search_old_slot+0x57b/0xab0 [btrfs]()
[ 4299.933950] Modules linked in: btrfs raid6_pq xor pci_stub vboxpci(O) vboxnetadp(O) vboxnetflt(O) vboxdrv(O) bnep rfcomm bluetooth parport_pc ppdev binfmt_misc joydev snd_hda_codec_h
[ 4299.933977] CPU: 0 PID: 23190 Comm: btrfs Tainted: G W O 3.12.0-fdm-btrfs-next-16+ #70
[ 4299.933978] Hardware name: To Be Filled By O.E.M. To Be Filled By O.E.M./Z77 Pro4, BIOS P1.50 09/04/2012
[ 4299.933979] 000000000000053f ffff8806f3fd98f8 ffffffff8176d284 0000000000000007
[ 4299.933982] 0000000000000000 ffff8806f3fd9938 ffffffff8104a81c ffff880659c64b70
[ 4299.933984] ffff880659c643d0 ffff8806599233d8 ffff880701e2e938 0000160000000000
[ 4299.933987] Call Trace:
[ 4299.933991] [<ffffffff8176d284>] dump_stack+0x55/0x76
[ 4299.933994] [<ffffffff8104a81c>] warn_slowpath_common+0x8c/0xc0
[ 4299.933997] [<ffffffff8104a86a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
[ 4299.934003] [<ffffffffa065d3bb>] btrfs_search_old_slot+0x57b/0xab0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934005] [<ffffffff81775f3b>] ? _raw_read_unlock+0x2b/0x50
[ 4299.934010] [<ffffffffa0655001>] ? __tree_mod_log_search+0x81/0xc0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934019] [<ffffffffa06dd9b0>] __resolve_indirect_refs+0x130/0x5f0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934027] [<ffffffffa06a21f1>] ? free_extent_buffer+0x61/0xc0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934034] [<ffffffffa06de39c>] find_parent_nodes+0x1fc/0xe40 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934042] [<ffffffffa06b13e0>] ? defrag_lookup_extent+0xe0/0xe0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934048] [<ffffffffa06b13e0>] ? defrag_lookup_extent+0xe0/0xe0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934056] [<ffffffffa06df980>] iterate_extent_inodes+0xe0/0x250 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934058] [<ffffffff817762db>] ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x2b/0x50
[ 4299.934065] [<ffffffffa06dfb82>] iterate_inodes_from_logical+0x92/0xb0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934071] [<ffffffffa06b13e0>] ? defrag_lookup_extent+0xe0/0xe0 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934078] [<ffffffffa06b7015>] btrfs_ioctl+0xf65/0x1f60 [btrfs]
[ 4299.934080] [<ffffffff811658b8>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x278/0xb00
[ 4299.934083] [<ffffffff81075563>] ? up_read+0x23/0x40
[ 4299.934085] [<ffffffff8177a41c>] ? __do_page_fault+0x20c/0x5a0
[ 4299.934088] [<ffffffff811b2946>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x96/0x570
[ 4299.934090] [<ffffffff81776e23>] ? error_sti+0x5/0x6
[ 4299.934093] [<ffffffff810b71e8>] ? trace_hardirqs_off_caller+0x28/0xd0
[ 4299.934096] [<ffffffff81776a09>] ? retint_swapgs+0xe/0x13
[ 4299.934098] [<ffffffff811b2eb1>] SyS_ioctl+0x91/0xb0
[ 4299.934100] [<ffffffff813eecde>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_thunk+0x3a/0x3f
[ 4299.934102] [<ffffffff8177ef12>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 4299.934102] [<ffffffff8177ef12>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 4299.934104] ---[ end trace 48f0cfc902491414 ]---
[ 4299.934378] btrfs bad fsid on block 0
These tree mod log operations that must be performed atomically, tree_mod_log_free_eb,
tree_mod_log_eb_copy, tree_mod_log_insert_root and tree_mod_log_insert_move, used to
be performed atomically before the following commit:
c8cc6341653721b54760480b0d0d9b5f09b46741
(Btrfs: stop using GFP_ATOMIC for the tree mod log allocations)
That change removed the atomicity of such operations. This patch restores the
atomicity while still not doing the GFP_ATOMIC allocations of tree_mod_elem
structures, so it has to do the allocations using GFP_NOFS before acquiring
the mod log lock.
This issue has been experienced by several users recently, such as for example:
http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg28574.html
After running the btrfs/004 test for 679 consecutive iterations with this
patch applied, I didn't ran into the issue anymore.
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Filipe David Borba Manana <fdmanana@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
diff c8cc6341653721b54760480b0d0d9b5f09b46741 Mon Jul 01 15:18:19 CDT 2013 Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com> Btrfs: stop using GFP_ATOMIC for the tree mod log allocations
Previously we held the tree mod lock when adding stuff because we use it to
check and see if we truly do want to track tree modifications. This is
admirable, but GFP_ATOMIC in a critical area that is going to get hit pretty
hard and often is not nice. So instead do our basic checks to see if we don't
need to track modifications, and if those pass then do our allocation, and then
when we go to insert the new modification check if we still care, and if we
don't just free up our mod and return. Otherwise we're good to go and we can
carry on. Thanks,
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <chris.mason@fusionio.com>
|