All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de>
To: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, jbacik@fb.com, clm@fb.com
Subject: Re: Qgroups wrong after snapshot create
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 15:28:04 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160405222804.GC2187@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160405221654.GB2187@wotan.suse.de>

On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 03:16:54PM -0700, Mark Fasheh wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2016 at 09:27:01AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> > Mark Fasheh wrote on 2016/04/04 16:06 -0700:
> > >Hi,
> > >
> > >Making a snapshot gets us the wrong qgroup numbers. This is very easy to
> > >reproduce. From a fresh btrfs filesystem, simply enable qgroups and create a
> > >snapshot. In this example we have mounted a newly created fresh filesystem
> > >and mounted it at /btrfs:
> > >
> > ># btrfs quota enable /btrfs
> > ># btrfs sub sna /btrfs/ /btrfs/snap1
> > ># btrfs qg show /btrfs
> > >
> > >qgroupid         rfer         excl
> > >--------         ----         ----
> > >0/5          32.00KiB     32.00KiB
> > >0/257        16.00KiB     16.00KiB
> > >
> > 
> > Also reproduced it.
> > 
> > My first idea is, old snapshot qgroup hack is involved.
> > 
> > Unlike btrfs_inc/dec_extent_ref(), snapshotting just use a dirty
> > hack to handle it:
> > Copy rfer from source subvolume, and directly set excl to nodesize.
> > 
> > If such work is before adding snapshot inode into src subvolume, it
> > may be the reason causing the bug.
> 
> Ok, thanks very much for looking into this Qu.
> 
> 
> > >In the example above, the default subvolume (0/5) should read 16KiB
> > >referenced and 16KiB exclusive.
> > >
> > >A rescan fixes things, so we know the rescan process is doing the math
> > >right:
> > >
> > ># btrfs quota rescan /btrfs
> > ># btrfs qgroup show /btrfs
> > >qgroupid         rfer         excl
> > >--------         ----         ----
> > >0/5          16.00KiB     16.00KiB
> > >0/257        16.00KiB     16.00KiB
> > >
> > 
> > So the base of qgroup code is not affected, or we may need another
> > painful rework.
> 
> Yeah as far as I can tell the core algorithm is fine. We're just running the
> extents incorrectly somehow.

Btw, I should add - my biggest fear was an algorithm change which would have
made older versions of btrfsck incompatible. It seems though we can still
use it for checking qgroups.
	--Mark

--
Mark Fasheh

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-05 22:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-04-04 23:06 Qgroups wrong after snapshot create Mark Fasheh
2016-04-05  1:27 ` Qu Wenruo
2016-04-05 22:16   ` Mark Fasheh
2016-04-05 22:28     ` Mark Fasheh [this message]
2016-04-05 13:27 ` Qu Wenruo

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20160405222804.GC2187@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=mfasheh@suse.de \
    --cc=clm@fb.com \
    --cc=jbacik@fb.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.