From: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
To: Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>,
Steven Davies <btrfs-list@steev.me.uk>,
"dsterba@suse.cz" <dsterba@suse.cz>,
linux-btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: 5.11.0: open ctree failed: devide total_bytes should be at most X but found Y
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 2021 09:20:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <d75bcf2d-dbee-ed1f-5602-23ed7d5597b0@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <PH0PR04MB741625481C6DAC65BB52857E9B809@PH0PR04MB7416.namprd04.prod.outlook.com>
On 24/02/2021 01:35, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
> On 23/02/2021 18:20, Steven Davies wrote:
>> On 2021-02-23 14:30, David Sterba wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:43:04AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>>> On 23/02/2021 10:13, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:
>>>>> On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [+CC Anand ]
>>>>>
>>>>>> Booted my system with kernel 5.11.0 vanilla with the first time and received this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTRFS info (device nvme0n1p2): has skinny extents
>>>>>> BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): device total_bytes should be at most 964757028864 but found
>>>>>> 964770336768
>>>>>> BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): failed to read chunk tree: -22
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Booting with 5.10.12 has no issues.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # btrfs filesystem usage /
>>>>>> Overall:
>>>>>> Device size: 898.51GiB
>>>>>> Device allocated: 620.06GiB
>>>>>> Device unallocated: 278.45GiB
>>>>>> Device missing: 0.00B
>>>>>> Used: 616.58GiB
>>>>>> Free (estimated): 279.94GiB (min: 140.72GiB)
>>>>>> Data ratio: 1.00
>>>>>> Metadata ratio: 2.00
>>>>>> Global reserve: 512.00MiB (used: 0.00B)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Data,single: Size:568.00GiB, Used:566.51GiB (99.74%)
>>>>>> /dev/nvme0n1p2 568.00GiB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Metadata,DUP: Size:26.00GiB, Used:25.03GiB (96.29%)
>>>>>> /dev/nvme0n1p2 52.00GiB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:80.00KiB (0.24%)
>>>>>> /dev/nvme0n1p2 64.00MiB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Unallocated:
>>>>>> /dev/nvme0n1p2 278.45GiB
>>>>>>
>>>>>> # parted -l
>>>>>> Model: Sabrent Rocket Q (nvme)
>>>>>> Disk /dev/nvme0n1: 1000GB
>>>>>> Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
>>>>>> Partition Table: gpt
>>>>>> Disk Flags:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Number Start End Size File system Name Flags
>>>>>> 1 1049kB 1075MB 1074MB fat32 boot, esp
>>>>>> 2 1075MB 966GB 965GB btrfs
>>>>>> 3 966GB 1000GB 34.4GB linux-swap(v1) swap
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What has changed in 5.11 which might cause this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This line:
>>>>>> BTRFS info (device nvme0n1p2): has skinny extents
>>>>>> BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): device total_bytes should be at most 964757028864 but found
>>>>>> 964770336768
>>>>>> BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): failed to read chunk tree: -22
>>>>>
>>>>> comes from 3a160a933111 ("btrfs: drop never met disk total bytes check in verify_one_dev_extent")
>>>>> which went into v5.11-rc1.
>>>>>
>>>>> IIUIC the device item's total_bytes and the block device inode's size are off by 12M, so the check
>>>>> introduced in the above commit refuses to mount the FS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Anand any idea?
>>>>
>>>> OK this is getting interesting:
>>>> btrfs-porgs sets the device's total_bytes at mkfs time and obtains it
>>>> from ioctl(..., BLKGETSIZE64, ...);
>>>>
>>>> BLKGETSIZE64 does:
>>>> return put_u64(argp, i_size_read(bdev->bd_inode));
>>>>
>>>> The new check in read_one_dev() does:
>>>>
>>>> u64 max_total_bytes =
>>>> i_size_read(device->bdev->bd_inode);
>>>>
>>>> if (device->total_bytes > max_total_bytes) {
>>>> btrfs_err(fs_info,
>>>> "device total_bytes should be at most %llu but
>>>> found %llu",
>>>> max_total_bytes,
>>>> device->total_bytes);
>>>> return -EINVAL;
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So the bdev inode's i_size must have changed between mkfs and mount.
>>
>> That's likely, this is my development/testing machine and I've changed
>> partitions (and btrfs RAID levels) around more than once since mkfs
>> time. I can't remember if or how I've modified the fs to take account of
>> this.
>>
What you say matches with the kernel logs.
>>>> Steven, can you please run:
>>>> blockdev --getsize64 /dev/nvme0n1p2
>>
>> # blockdev --getsize64 /dev/nvme0n1p2
>> 964757028864
Size at the time of mkfs is 964770336768. Now it is 964757028864.
>>
>>>
>>> The kernel side verifies that the physical device size is not smaller
>>> than the size recorded in the device item, so that makes sense. I was a
>>> bit doubtful about the check but it can detect real problems or point
>>> out some weirdness.
>>
>> Agreed. It's useful, but somewhat painful when it refuses to mount a
>> root device after reboot.
>>
>>> The 12M delta is not big, but I'd expect that for a physical device it
>>> should not change. Another possibility would be some kind of rounding
>>> to
>>> a reasonable number, like 16M.
>>
>> Is there a simple way to fix this partition so that btrfs and the
>> partition table agree on its size?
>>
>
> Unless someone's yelling at me that this is a bad advice (David, Anand?),
> I'd go for:
> btrfs filesystem resize max /
I was thinking about the same step when I was reading above.
> I've personally never shrinked a device but looking at the code it will
> write the blockdevice's inode i_size to the device extents, and possibly
> relocate data.
Shrink works. I have tested it before.
I hope shrink helps here too. Please let us know.
Thanks, Anand
>
> Hope I didn't give a bad advice,
> Johannes
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-02-24 1:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-02-22 19:38 5.11.0: open ctree failed: devide total_bytes should be at most X but found Y Steven Davies
2021-02-23 9:11 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2021-02-23 9:43 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2021-02-23 14:30 ` David Sterba
2021-02-23 17:19 ` Steven Davies
2021-02-23 17:35 ` Johannes Thumshirn
2021-02-24 1:20 ` Anand Jain [this message]
2021-02-24 17:19 ` Steven Davies
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=d75bcf2d-dbee-ed1f-5602-23ed7d5597b0@oracle.com \
--to=anand.jain@oracle.com \
--cc=Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=btrfs-list@steev.me.uk \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/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).