From: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com>, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] xfs: don't shutdown log recovery on validation errors
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2013 15:22:23 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130614202223.GD20932@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <51BB74F0.7040406@sandeen.net>
Hey Eric,
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:54:24PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 6/14/13 2:44 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> > Hey Eric,
> >
> > On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 02:18:20PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >> On 6/14/13 2:08 PM, Ben Myers wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:15:41AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> >>>> Ben, isn't it the case that the corruption would only happen if
> >>>> log replay failed for some reason (as has always been the case,
> >>>> verifier or not), but with the verifier in place, it kills replay
> >>>> even w/o other problems due to a logical problem with the
> >>>> (recently added) verifiers?
> >>>
> >>> It seems like the verifier prevented corruption from hitting disk during
> >>> log replay.
> >>
> >> It detected a an inconsistent *interim* state during replay, which is
> >> always made correct by log replay completion. But it *stopped* that log
> >> replay completion. And caused log replay to fail. And mount to fail.
> >> This is *new* behavior, and bad.
> >>
> >> As I understand it.
> >>
> >>> It is enforcing a partial replay up to the point where the
> >>> corruption occurred. Now you should be able to zero the log and the
> >>> filesystem is not corrupted.
> >>>
> >>>> IOW - this seems like an actual functional regression due to the
> >>>> addition of the verifier, and dchinner's patch gets us back
> >>>> to the almost-always-fine state we were in prior to the change.
> >>>
> >>> Oh, the spin doctor is *in*!
> >>
> >> This is not spin.
> >>
> >>> This isn't a logical problem with the verifier, it's a logical problem
> >>> with log replay. We need to find a way for recovery to know whether a
> >>> given transaction should be replayed. Fixing that is nontrivial.
> >>
> >> Right.
> >>
> >> And it's been around for years. The verifier now detects that
> >> interim state, and makes things *worse* than they would be had log
> >> replay been allowed to continue.
> >>
> >> Fixing the interim state may be nontrivial; allowing log replay
> >> to continue to a consistent state as it always has *is* trivial,
> >> it's what's done in Dave's small patch.
> >>
> >>>> As we're at -rc6, it seems quite reasonable to me as a quick
> >>>> fix to just short-circuit it for now.
> >>>
> >>> If we're talking about a short term fix, that's fine. This should be
> >>> conditional on CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG and marked as such.
> >>>
> >>> Long term, removing the verifiers is the wrong thing to do here. We
> >>> need to fix the recovery bug and then remove this temporary workaround.
> >>>
> >>>> If you have time to analyze dave's metadump that's cool, but
> >>>> this seems like something that really needs to be addressed
> >>>> before 3.10 gets out the door.
> >>>
> >>> If this really is a day one bug then it's been out the door almost
> >>> twenty years. And you want to hurry now? ;)
> >>
> >> We seem to be talking past each other.
> >>
> >> The corrupted interim state has been around for years. Up until
> >> now, log replay completion left things in perfect state.
> >>
> >> The verifier now *breaks replay* at that interim point.
> >> Were it allowed to continue, everything would be fine.
> >>
> >> As things stand, it is not fine, and this is a recent change
> >> which Dave is trying to correct.
> >>
> >> Leaving it in place will cause filesystems which were replaying
> >> logs just fine until recently to now fail with no good way out.
> >
> > That is consistent with my understanding of the problem...
> >
> > Unfortunately log replay is broken. The verifier has detected this and stopped
> > replay. Ideally the solution would be to fix log replay, but that is going to
> > take some time. So, in the near term we're just going to disable the verifier
> > to allow replay to complete.
>
> Right, that's what we're hoping - for 3.10 right?
Yep. But it should also go back through -stable.
> Maybe the talking-past-each-other was only that part. I thought you didn't
> want to disable it for now.
I didn't want to disable it. That was yesterday. Mark set me straight on how
easy this should be to hit.
> > I'm suggesting that this disabling be done conditionally on CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG so
> > that developers still have a chance at hitting the log replay problem,
>
> so that real-world users will still feel the pain ...?
>
> Or did you say that backwards (really only *disabling* it under debug?)
>
> Ok, confirmed on IRC you mean to disable it if *NOT* debug, enable it
> under debug.
Right.
> > and a
> > comment should be added explaining that we've disabled the verifier due to a
> > specific bug as a temporary workaround and we'll re-enable the verifier once
> > it's fixed. I'll update the patch and repost.
>
> Maybe if the verifiers were *on* under debug that'd make sense.
Sorry for the confusion.
> I think putting it under the config is overkill, since anyone who wants
> to fix it is surely capable of re-enabling it in the code. But if that
> avoids an impasse, I don't much care.
Great. Apparently I'm being pedantic today. I'd like it to be clear that we
intend for this to be a temporary workaround....
> > Are you guys arguing that the log replay bug should not be fixed?
>
> Speaking for myself, I'm not arguing that, not at all.
> (not that I know how to fix it, either)
...until log replay is fixed. Hell. I'll just pull it in as-is.
Reviewed-by: Ben Myers <bpm@sgi.com>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-06-14 20:22 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-06-12 2:19 [PATCH 0/3] xfs: fixes for 3.10-rc6 Dave Chinner
2013-06-12 2:19 ` [PATCH 1/3] xfs: don't shutdown log recovery on validation errors Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 1:04 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-13 2:08 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 22:09 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 0:13 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-14 12:55 ` Mark Tinguely
2013-06-14 16:09 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 16:15 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-14 19:08 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 19:18 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-14 19:44 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 19:54 ` Eric Sandeen
2013-06-14 20:22 ` Ben Myers [this message]
2013-06-28 18:54 ` Dave Jones
2013-06-28 19:24 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-28 19:28 ` Dave Jones
2013-06-28 19:31 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-15 0:56 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-17 14:53 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-18 1:22 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-14 16:17 ` Dave Jones
2013-06-14 16:31 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-12 2:19 ` [PATCH 2/3] xfs: fix implicit padding in directory and attr CRC formats Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 0:58 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-13 1:40 ` Michael L. Semon
2013-06-13 2:27 ` Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 21:31 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-12 2:19 ` [PATCH 3/3] xfs: ensure btree root split sets blkno correctly Dave Chinner
2013-06-13 19:16 ` Ben Myers
2013-06-14 0:21 ` Dave Chinner
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=20130614202223.GD20932@sgi.com \
--to=bpm@sgi.com \
--cc=davej@redhat.com \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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