Re: PROBLEM: XFS on ARM corruption 'Structure needs cleaning'

[Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>]

On 6/11/15 10:28 AM, Török Edwin wrote:
> On 06/11/2015 06:16 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:23:38AM +0300, Török Edwin wrote:
>>> [1.] XFS on ARM corruption 'Structure needs cleaning'
>>> [2.] Full description of the problem/report:
>>>
>>> I have been running XFS sucessfully on x86-64 for years, however I'm having trouble running it on ARM.
>>>
>>> Running the testcase below [7.] reliably reproduces the filesystem corruption starting from a freshly
>>> created XFS filesystem: running ls after 'sxadm node --new --batch /export/dfs/a/b' shows a 'Structure needs cleaning' error,
>>> and dmesg shows a corruption error [6.].
>>> xfs_repair 3.1.9 is not able to repair the corruption: after mounting the repair filesystem
>>> I still get the 'Structure needs cleaning' error.
>>>
>>> Note: using /export/dfs/a/b is important for reproducing the problem: if I only use one level of directories in /export/dfs then the problem
>>> doesn't reproduce. Also if I use a tuned version of sxadm that creates fewer database files then the problem doesn't reproduce either.
>>>
>>> [3.] Keywords: filesystems, XFS corruption, ARM
>>> [4.] Kernel information
>>> [4.1.] Kernel version (from /proc/version):
>>> Linux hornet34 3.14.3-00088-g7651c68 #24 Thu Apr 9 16:13:46 MDT 2015 armv7l GNU/Linux
>>>
>> ...
>>> [5.] Most recent kernel version which did not have the bug: Unknown, first kernel I try on ARM
>>>
>>> [6.] dmesg stacktrace
>>>
>>> [4627578.440000] XFS (sda4): Mounting Filesystem
>>> [4627578.510000] XFS (sda4): Ending clean mount
>>> [4627621.470000] dd6ee000: 58 46 53 42 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 37 40 21 00  XFSB........7@!.
>>> [4627621.480000] dd6ee010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
>>> [4627621.490000] dd6ee020: 5b 08 7f 79 0e 3a 46 3d 9b ea 26 ad 9d 62 17 8d  [..y.:F=..&..b..
>>> [4627621.490000] dd6ee030: 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80  .... ...........
>>
>> Just a data point... the magic number here looks like a superblock magic
>> (XFSB) rather than one of the directory magic numbers. I'm wondering if
>> a buffer disk address has gone bad somehow or another.
>>
>> Does this happen to be a large block device? I don't see any partition
>> or xfs_info data below. If so, it would be interesting to see if this
>> reproduces on a smaller device. It does appear that the large block
>> device option is enabled in the kernel config above, however, so maybe
>> that's unrelated.
> 
> This is mkfs.xfs /dev/sda4:
> meta-data=/dev/sda4              isize=256    agcount=4, agsize=231737408 blks
>          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2, projid32bit=0
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=926949632, imaxpct=5
>          =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
> log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=452612, version=2
>          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0
> 
> But it also reproduces with this small loopback file:
> meta-data=/tmp/xfs.test          isize=256    agcount=2, agsize=5120 blks
>          =                       sectsz=512   attr=2, projid32bit=0
> data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=10240, imaxpct=25
>          =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
> naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
> log      =internal log           bsize=4096   blocks=1200, version=2
>          =                       sectsz=512   sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
> realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0

ok so not a block number overflow issue, thanks.

> You can have a look at xfs.test here: http://vol-public.s3.indian.skylable.com:8008/armel/testcase/xfs.test.gz
> 
> If I loopback mount that on an x86-64 box it doesn't show the corruption message though ...

FWIW, this is the 2nd report we've had of something similar, both on Armv7, both ok on x86_64.

I'll take a look at your xfs.test; that's presumably copied after it reported the error, and you unmounted it before uploading, correct?  And it was mkfs'd on armv7, never mounted or manipulated in any way on x86_64?

Thanks,
-Eric

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs