From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 08A9FC3B186 for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 04:03:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A8DE62072C for ; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 04:03:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=synology.com header.i=@synology.com header.b="rXyPVZ1H" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728081AbgBKEDW (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:03:22 -0500 Received: from mail.synology.com ([211.23.38.101]:56964 "EHLO synology.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727928AbgBKEDW (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Feb 2020 23:03:22 -0500 Received: from _ (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by synology.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 1A7C4DB184C0; Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:03:20 +0800 (CST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=synology.com; s=123; t=1581393800; bh=c6GbZnWvJunC8PxMcdqcJPd6hJeCJXbwKIy3wqn8BQI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=rXyPVZ1HkNwl9FdNgJV/BVlYKC+Xbp9o27/nFh4zaXPu2W/t9Ktp6nZl/SowxfgJQ FUzTtT1vOYm2eJCnqNeIPGkB6Xwzsex5+uSGbYQ9I6mR2sYj1RWG9DuQUZe7wbe3Zd 1/3F5bwEpC+83HWZENW21zX3W33xOMtqfORmeQpc= MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2020 12:03:20 +0800 From: ethanwu To: dsterba@suse.cz, ethanwu , Josef Bacik , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] btrfs: backref, only collect file extent items matching backref offset In-Reply-To: <20200210162927.GK2654@twin.jikos.cz> References: <20200207093818.23710-1-ethanwu@synology.com> <20200207093818.23710-2-ethanwu@synology.com> <0badf0be-d481-10fb-c23d-1b69b985e145@toxicpanda.com> <20200210162927.GK2654@twin.jikos.cz> Message-ID: <5901b2be7358137e691b319cbad43111@synology.com> X-Sender: ethanwu@synology.com User-Agent: Roundcube Webmail/1.1.2 X-Synology-MCP-Status: no X-Synology-Spam-Flag: no X-Synology-Spam-Status: score=0, required 6, WHITELIST_FROM_ADDRESS 0 X-Synology-Virus-Status: no Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org David Sterba 於 2020-02-11 00:29 寫到: > On Mon, Feb 10, 2020 at 05:12:48PM +0800, ethanwu wrote: >> Josef Bacik 於 2020-02-08 00:26 寫到: >> > On 2/7/20 4:38 AM, ethanwu wrote: >> >> When resolving one backref of type EXTENT_DATA_REF, we collect all >> >> references that simply references the EXTENT_ITEM even though >> >> their (file_pos- file_extent_item::offset) are not the same as the >> >> btrfs_extent_data_ref::offset we are searching. >> >> >> >> This patch add additional check so that we only collect references >> >> whose >> >> (file_pos- file_extent_item::offset) == btrfs_extent_data_ref::offset. >> >> >> >> Signed-off-by: ethanwu >> > >> > I just want to make sure that btrfs/097 passes still right? That's >> > what the key_for_search thing was about, so I want to make sure we're >> > not regressing. I assume you've run xfstests but I just want to make >> > doubly sure we're good here. If you did then you can add >> > >> > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik >> > >> > Thanks, >> > >> > Josef >> >> Thanks for reviewing. >> >> I've run the btrfs part of xfstests, 097 passed. >> Failed at following tests: >> 074 (failed 2 out of 5 runs), >> 139, 153, 154, >> 197, 198(Patches related to these 2 tests seem to be not merged yet?) >> 201, 202 >> >> My kernel environment is 5.5-rc5, and this branch doesn't contain >> fixes for tests 201 and 202. >> All these failing tests also failed at the same version without my >> patch. > > I tested the patchset in my environment and besides the above known > and unrelated failures, there's one that seems to be new and possibly > related to the patches: > > btrfs/125 [18:18:14][ 5937.333021] run fstests btrfs/125 > at 2020-02-07 18:18:14 > [ 5937.737705] BTRFS info (device vda): disk space caching is enabled > [ 5937.741359] BTRFS info (device vda): has skinny extents > [ 5938.318881] BTRFS: device fsid e34ea734-aeef-484b-8a5b-d061e3bad8c5 > devid 1 transid 5 /dev/vdb scanned by mkfs.btrfs (21913) > [ 5938.323180] BTRFS: device fsid e34ea734-aeef-484b-8a5b-d061e3bad8c5 > devid 2 transid 5 /dev/vdc scanned by mkfs.btrfs (21913) > [ 5938.327229] BTRFS: device fsid e34ea734-aeef-484b-8a5b-d061e3bad8c5 > devid 3 transid 5 /dev/vdd scanned by mkfs.btrfs (21913) > [ 5938.344608] BTRFS info (device vdb): disk space caching is enabled > [ 5938.347892] BTRFS info (device vdb): has skinny extents > [ 5938.350941] BTRFS info (device vdb): flagging fs with big metadata > feature > [ 5938.360083] BTRFS info (device vdb): checking UUID tree > [ 5938.470343] BTRFS: device fsid e34ea734-aeef-484b-8a5b-d061e3bad8c5 > devid 2 transid 7 /dev/vdc scanned by mount (21955) > [ 5938.476444] BTRFS: device fsid e34ea734-aeef-484b-8a5b-d061e3bad8c5 > devid 1 transid 7 /dev/vdb scanned by mount (21955) > [ 5938.480289] BTRFS info (device vdb): allowing degraded mounts > [ 5938.483738] BTRFS info (device vdb): disk space caching is enabled > [ 5938.487557] BTRFS info (device vdb): has skinny extents > [ 5938.491416] BTRFS warning (device vdb): devid 3 uuid > f86704f4-689c-4677-b5f2-5380cf6be2d3 is missing > [ 5938.493879] BTRFS warning (device vdb): devid 3 uuid > f86704f4-689c-4677-b5f2-5380cf6be2d3 is missing > [ 5939.233288] BTRFS: device fsid 265be525-bf76-447b-8db6-d69b0d3885d1 > devid 1 transid 250 /dev/vda scanned by btrfs (21983) > [ 5939.250044] BTRFS info (device vdb): disk space caching is enabled > [ 5939.253525] BTRFS info (device vdb): has skinny extents > [ 5949.283384] BTRFS info (device vdb): balance: start -d -m -s > [ 5949.288563] BTRFS info (device vdb): relocating block group > 217710592 flags data|raid5 > [ 5949.322231] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39862272 have 30949376 > [ 5949.328136] repair_io_failure: 22 callbacks suppressed > [ 5949.328139] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 0 > off 39862272 (dev /dev/vdd sector 19488) > [ 5949.333447] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 0 > off 39866368 (dev /dev/vdd sector 19496) > [ 5949.336875] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 0 > off 39870464 (dev /dev/vdd sector 19504) > [ 5949.340325] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 0 > off 39874560 (dev /dev/vdd sector 19512) > [ 5949.409934] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2228224 csum > 0x5f6faf4265e0e04dc797f32ab085653d60954cfd976b257c83e7cd825ae7c98e > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.414764] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2555904 csum > 0xde6a48c4c66a765d0142c27fee1ec429055152fe3f10d70e4ef59a9d7a071bdc > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.414774] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2621440 csum > 0x47800732ac4471f4aced9c4fe35cb6046c401792a99daa02ccbc35e0b4632496 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.414946] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2637824 csum > 0x769bd186841c10e5b1106b55986206c0e87fc05a7f565fdee01b5abcaff6ae78 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.415061] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2641920 csum > 0x769bd186841c10e5b1106b55986206c0e87fc05a7f565fdee01b5abcaff6ae78 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.415136] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2646016 csum > 0x769bd186841c10e5b1106b55986206c0e87fc05a7f565fdee01b5abcaff6ae78 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.415214] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2650112 csum > 0x769bd186841c10e5b1106b55986206c0e87fc05a7f565fdee01b5abcaff6ae78 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.415260] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2654208 csum > 0x769bd186841c10e5b1106b55986206c0e87fc05a7f565fdee01b5abcaff6ae78 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.415304] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2658304 csum > 0x769bd186841c10e5b1106b55986206c0e87fc05a7f565fdee01b5abcaff6ae78 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.415348] BTRFS warning (device vdb): csum failed root -9 ino 257 > off 2662400 csum > 0x769bd186841c10e5b1106b55986206c0e87fc05a7f565fdee01b5abcaff6ae78 > expected csum > 0xad7facb2586fc6e966c004d7d1d16b024f5805ff7cb47c7a85dabd8b48892ca7 > mirror 1 > [ 5949.419530] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 257 > off 2621440 (dev /dev/vdd sector 195712) > [ 5949.420414] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 257 > off 2641920 (dev /dev/vdd sector 195752) > [ 5949.420528] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 257 > off 2637824 (dev /dev/vdd sector 195744) > [ 5949.420651] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 257 > off 2650112 (dev /dev/vdd sector 195768) > [ 5949.420771] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 257 > off 2654208 (dev /dev/vdd sector 195776) > [ 5949.420886] BTRFS info (device vdb): read error corrected: ino 257 > off 2662400 (dev /dev/vdd sector 195792) > [ 5949.527064] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39059456 have 30539776 > [ 5949.527461] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39075840 have 30556160 > [ 5949.527646] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39092224 have 0 > [ 5949.527664] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39108608 have 30588928 > [ 5949.546199] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39075840 have 30556160 > [ 5949.579222] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39092224 have 0 > [ 5949.589051] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39108608 have 30588928 > [ 5949.828796] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39387136 have 30670848 > [ 5949.828804] BTRFS error (device vdb): bad tree block start, want > 39403520 have 0 > [ 5950.430515] BTRFS info (device vdb): balance: ended with status: -5 > [ 5950.450348] btrfs (22010) used greatest stack depth: 10304 bytes > left > [failed, exit status 1][ 5950.461088] BTRFS info (device vdb): > clearing incompat feature flag for RAID56 (0x80) > [18:18:27]- output mismatch (see > /tmp/fstests/results//btrfs/125.out.bad) > --- tests/btrfs/125.out 2018-04-12 16:57:00.616225550 +0000 > +++ /tmp/fstests/results//btrfs/125.out.bad 2020-02-07 > 18:18:27.496000000 +0000 > @@ -3,5 +3,5 @@ > Write data with degraded mount > > Mount normal and balance > - > -Mount degraded but with other dev > +failed: '/sbin/btrfs balance start /tmp/scratch' > +(see /tmp/fstests/results//btrfs/125.full for details) > ... > (Run 'diff -u /tmp/fstests/tests/btrfs/125.out > /tmp/fstests/results//btrfs/125.out.bad' to see the entire diff) Hi, I've rebased my kernel environment to the latest for-next branch, xfstests is updated to latest as well. Test 125 still passes many times without even one failure. here's my local.config export TEST_DEV=/dev/sdc export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch export FSTYP=btrfs export SCRATCH_DEV_POOL="/dev/sdd /dev/sde /dev/sdf /dev/sdg /dev/sdh" each device has 80GB capacity. Besides, LOGWRITES_DEV is not set and CONFIG_FAULT_INJECTION_DEBUG_FS is turned off, but both seems to be unrelated to 125. thanks, ethanwu