From: Boris Burkov <boris@bur.io>
To: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: don't call end_extent_writepage() in __extent_writepage() when IO failed
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2021 10:03:41 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YTjstM7duaGeAgwK@zen> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210803055348.170042-1-wqu@suse.com>
On Tue, Aug 03, 2021 at 01:53:48PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> [BUG]
> When running generic/475 with 64K page size and 4K sectorsize (aka
> subpage), it can trigger the following BUG_ON() inside
> btrfs_csum_one_bio(), the possibility is around 1/20 ~ 1/5:
>
> bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
> if (!contig)
> offset = page_offset(bvec.bv_page) + bvec.bv_offset;
>
> if (!ordered) {
> ordered = btrfs_lookup_ordered_extent(inode, offset);
> BUG_ON(!ordered); /* Logic error */ <<<<
> }
>
> nr_sectors = BTRFS_BYTES_TO_BLKS(fs_info,
>
> [CAUSE]
> Test case generic/475 uses dm-errors to emulate IO failure.
>
> Here if we have a page cache which has the following delalloc range:
>
> 0 32K 64K
> |/////| |////| |
> \- [0, 4K) \- [32K, 36K)
>
> And then __extent_writepage() can go through the following race:
>
> T1 (writeback) | T2 (endio)
> --------------------------------+----------------------------------
> __extent_writepage() |
> |- writepage_delalloc() |
> | |- run_delalloc_range() |
> | | Add OE for [0, 4K) |
> | |- run_delalloc_range() |
> | Add OE for [32K, 36K) |
> | |
> |- __extent_writepage_io() |
> | |- submit_extent_page() |
> | | |- Assemble the bio for |
> | | range [0, 4K) |
> | |- submit_extent_page() |
> | | |- Submit the bio for |
> | | | range [0, 4K) |
> | | | | end_bio_extent_writepage()
> | | | | |- error = -EIO;
> | | | | |- end_extent_writepage( error=-EIO);
> | | | | |- writepage_endio_finish_ordered()
> | | | | | Remove OE for range [0, 4K)
> | | | | |- btrfs_page_set_error()
> | |- submit_extent_page() |
> | |- Assemble the bio for |
> | range [32K, 36K) |
> |- if (PageError(page)) |
> |- end_extent_writepage() |
> |- endio_finish_ordered() |
> Remove OE [32K, 36K) |
> |
> Submit bio for [32K, 36K) |
> |- btrfs_csum_one_bio() |
> |- BUG_ON(!ordered_extent) |
> OE [32K, 36K) is already |
> removed. |
>
> This can only happen for subpage case, as for regular sectorsize, we
> never submit current page, thus IO error will never mark the current
> page Error.
>
> [FIX]
> Just remove the end_extent_writepage() call and the if (PageError())
> check.
>
> As mentioned, the end_extent_writepage() never really get executed for
> regular sectorsize, and could cause above BUG_ON() for subpage.
I was a little surprised to see this assertion, because it begs the
question: "why was this call added in the first place?"
As best as I can tell, it was introduced by Filipe in
"Btrfs: fix hang on error (such as ENOSPC) when writing extent pages"
That looks like a reasonably niche case that might not be covered by
xfstests, so I was wondering if you had already convinced yourself that
it no longer applies.
I'll try to see if I can reproduce his issue with this patch, or if the
code has changed by enough that it no longer reproduces.
>
> This also means, inside __extent_writepage() we should not bother any IO
> failure, but only focus on the error hit during bio assembly and
> submission.
>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | 14 +++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> index e665779c046d..a1a6ac787faf 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> @@ -4111,8 +4111,8 @@ static int __extent_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc,
> * Here we used to have a check for PageError() and then set @ret and
> * call end_extent_writepage().
> *
> - * But in fact setting @ret here will cause different error paths
> - * between subpage and regular sectorsize.
> + * But in fact setting @ret and call end_extent_writepage() here will
> + * cause different error paths between subpage and regular sectorsize.
> *
> * For regular page size, we never submit current page, but only add
> * current page to current bio.
> @@ -4124,7 +4124,12 @@ static int __extent_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc,
> * thus can get PageError() set by submitted bio of the same page,
> * while our @ret is still 0.
> *
> - * So here we unify the behavior and don't set @ret.
> + * The same is also for end_extent_writepage(), which can finish
> + * ordered extent before submitting the real bio, causing
> + * BUG_ON() in btrfs_csum_one_bio().
> + *
> + * So here we unify the behavior and don't set @ret nor call
> + * end_extent_writepage().
> * Error can still be properly passed to higher layer as page will
> * be set error, here we just don't handle the IO failure.
> *
> @@ -4138,8 +4143,7 @@ static int __extent_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc,
> * Currently the full page based __extent_writepage_io() is not
> * capable of that.
> */
> - if (PageError(page))
> - end_extent_writepage(page, ret, start, page_end);
> +
> unlock_page(page);
> ASSERT(ret <= 0);
> return ret;
> --
> 2.32.0
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-09-08 17:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-08-03 5:53 [PATCH] btrfs: don't call end_extent_writepage() in __extent_writepage() when IO failed Qu Wenruo
2021-09-08 17:03 ` Boris Burkov [this message]
2021-09-08 22:36 ` 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=YTjstM7duaGeAgwK@zen \
--to=boris@bur.io \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wqu@suse.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).