From: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fusionio.com>
To: Miao Xie <miaox@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>, David Sterba <dave@jikos.cz>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] Btrfs: fix full backref problem when inserting shared block reference
Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2012 08:23:19 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120809122319.GG2141@localhost.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <50232A19.2010704@cn.fujitsu.com>
On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 09:10:17PM -0600, Miao Xie wrote:
> If we create several snapshots at the same time, the following BUG_ON() will be
> triggered.
>
> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6047!
>
> Steps to reproduce:
> # mkfs.btrfs <partition>
> # mount <partition> <mnt>
> # cd <mnt>
> # for ((i=0;i<2400;i++)); do touch long_name_to_make_tree_more_deep$i; done
> # for ((i=0; i<4; i++))
> > do
> > mkdir $i
> > for ((j=0; j<200; j++))
> > do
> > btrfs sub snap . $i/$j
> > done &
> > done
>
> The reason is:
> Before transaction commit, some operations changed the fs tree and new tree
> blocks were allocated because of COW. We used the implicit non-shared back
> reference for those newly allocated tree blocks because they were not shared by
> two or more trees.
>
> And then we created the first snapshot for the fs tree, according to the back
> reference rules, we also used implicit back refs for the child tree blocks of
> the root node of the fs tree, now those child nodes/leaves were shared by two
> trees.
>
> Then We didn't deal with the delayed references, and continued to change the fs
> tree(created the second snapshot and inserted the dir item of the new snapshot
> into the fs tree). According to the rules of the back reference, we added full
> back refs for those tree blocks whose parents have be shared by two trees.
> Now some newly allocated tree blocks had two types of the references.
>
> As we know, the delayed reference system handles these delayed references from
> back to front, and the full delayed reference is inserted after the implicit
> ones. So when we dealt with the back references of those newly allocated tree
> blocks, the full references was dealt with at first. And if the first reference
> is a shared back reference and the tree block that the reference points to is
> newly allocated, It would be considered as a tree block which is shared by two
> or more trees when it is allocated and should be a full back reference not a
> implicit one, the flag of its reference also should be set to FULL_BACKREF.
> But in fact, it was a non-shared tree block with a implicit reference at
> beginning, so it was not compulsory to set the flags to FULL_BACKREF. So BUG_ON
> was triggered.
>
> We have several methods to fix this bug:
> 1. deal with delayed references after the snapshot is created and before we
> change the source tree of the snapshot. This is the easiest and safest way.
> 2. modify the sort method of the delayed reference tree, make the full delayed
> references be inserted before the implicit ones. It is also very easy, but
> I don't know if it will introduce some problems or not.
Thanks for tracking this down, FWIW I like option 2 the most, it would be
intereseting to see if it does actually introduce new issues. Thanks,
Josef
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-08-09 12:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-09 3:10 [RFC PATCH] Btrfs: fix full backref problem when inserting shared block reference Miao Xie
2012-08-09 6:48 ` David Sterba
2012-08-09 7:21 ` David Sterba
2012-08-09 7:50 ` Miao Xie
2012-08-10 10:38 ` Miao Xie
2012-08-21 6:24 ` Miao Xie
2012-08-09 12:23 ` Josef Bacik [this message]
2012-08-09 13:11 ` Chris Mason
2012-08-09 13:12 ` Josef Bacik
2012-08-09 13:16 ` Chris Mason
2012-08-09 18:04 ` Chris Mason
2012-08-10 10:38 ` Miao Xie
2012-08-10 11:56 ` Chris Mason
2013-01-30 18:23 ` Alex Lyakas
2013-01-31 2:42 ` Miao Xie
2013-01-31 13:06 ` Alex Lyakas
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=20120809122319.GG2141@localhost.localdomain \
--to=jbacik@fusionio.com \
--cc=dave@jikos.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=miaox@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).