Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] btrfs-progs: mkfs: make sure we can clean up all temporary chunks

Qu Wenruo
2021-10-11T12:14:50Z

On 2021/10/11 20:10, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 11.10.21 г. 15:06, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>> There is a bug report that with certain mkfs options, mkfs.btrfs may
>> fail to cleanup some temporary chunks, leading to "btrfs filesystem df"
>> warning about multiple profiles:
>>
>> WARNING: Multiple block group profiles detected, see 'man btrfs(5)'.
>> WARNING: Metadata: single, raid1
>>
>> The easiest way to reproduce is "mkfs.btrfs -f -R free-space-tree -m dup
>> -d dup".
>>
>> It turns out that, the old _recow_root() can not handle tree levels > 0,
>> while with newer free space tree creation timing, the free space tree
>> can reach level 1 or higher.
>>
>> To fix the problem, Patch 2 will do the proper full tree re-CoW, with
>> extra transaction commitment to make sure all free space tree get
>> re-CoWed.
>>
>> The 3rd patch will do the extra verification during mkfs-tests.
>>
>> The first patch is just to fix a confusing parameter which also caused
>> u64 -> int width reduction and can be problematic in the future.
>>
>> Changelog:
>> v2:
>> - Remove a duplicated recow_roots() call in create_raid_groups()
>> This call makes no difference as we will later commit transaction
>> and manually call recow_roots() again.
>> Remove such duplicated call to save some time.
>>
>> - Replace the btrfs_next_sibling_tree_block() with btrfs_next_leaf()
>> Since we're always handling leaves, there is no need for
>> btrfs_next_sibling_tree_block()
>>
>> - Work around a kernel bug which may cause false alerts
>> For single device RAID0, btrfs kernel is not respecting it, and will
>> allocate new chunks using SINGLE instead.
>> This can be very noisy and cause false alerts, and not always
>> reproducible, depending on how fast kernel creates new chunks.
>>
>> Work around it by mounting the RO before calling "btrfs fi df".
>>
>> The kernel bug needs to be investigated and fixed.
> It's better to see the kernel bug fixed rather than papering over it.

That's for sure.

Just get overloaded by so many small bugs in one day.

Will investigate and fix the bug soon.

For the test case itself, mounting with RO in fact makes sense, we just
want to the initial chunk layout created by mkfs.

If later we choose to compare the total chunk size against the reported
values, such RO mount is a hard requirement to avoid chunk preallocation.

Thanks,
Qu
>
>>
>>
>> Qu Wenruo (3):
>> btrfs-progs: rename @data parameter to @profile in extent allocation
>> path
>> btrfs-progs: mkfs: recow all tree blocks properly
>> btrfs-progs: mfks-tests: make sure mkfs.btrfs cleans up temporary
>> chunks
>>
>> kernel-shared/extent-tree.c | 26 +++---
>> mkfs/main.c | 90 ++++++++++++++++++---
>> tests/mkfs-tests/001-basic-profiles/test.sh | 16 +++-
>> 3 files changed, 104 insertions(+), 28 deletions(-)
>>