Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: ensure btree root split sets blkno correctly

Ben Myers
2013-06-13T19:16:20Z

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:19:08PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
>
> For CRC enabled filesystems, the BMBT is rooted in an inode, so it
> passes through a difference code path on root splits to the
different than

> freespace and inode btrees. This is much less traversed by xfstests
> than the other trees. When testing on a 1k block size filesystem,
> I've been seeing ASSERT failures in generic/234 like:
>
> XFS: Assertion failed: cur->bc_btnum != XFS_BTNUM_BMAP || cur->bc_private.b.allocated == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_btree.c, line: 317
>
> which are generally preceded by a lblock check failure. I noticed
> this in the bmbt stats:
>
> $ pminfo -f xfs.btree.block_map
>
> xfs.btree.block_map.lookup
> value 39135
>
> xfs.btree.block_map.compare
> value 268432
>
> xfs.btree.block_map.insrec
> value 15786
>
> xfs.btree.block_map.delrec
> value 13884
>
> xfs.btree.block_map.newroot
> value 2
>
> xfs.btree.block_map.killroot
> value 0
> .....
>
> Very little coverage of root splits and merges. Indeed, on a 4k
> filesystem, block_map.newroot and block_map.killroot are both zero.
> i.e the code is not exercised at all, and it's the only generic
.
> btree infrastruct operation that is not exercised by a default run
infrastructure

Cleaned those up.

> of xfstests.
>
> Turns out that on a 1k filesystem, generic/234 accounts for one of
> those two root splits, and that is somewhat of a smoking gun. In
> fact, it's the same problem we saw in the directory/attr code where
> headers are memcpy()d from one block to another without updating the
> self describing metadata.

It is very interesting that this area of code is exercised so infrequently. I
remember seeing a paper that described a tool that would list codepaths that
are exercised during a test run. Does that ring a bell? It seems like this
might be worth looking into more generally.

> Simple fix - when copying the header out of the root block, make
> sure the block number is updated correctly.

Yep, looks fine.

> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>

Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>