linux-xfs.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Darrick J. Wong" <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/6] xfs: fix buffer state management in xrep_findroot_block
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 17:32:56 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180928003256.GI4635@magnolia> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180813165658.GB64121@bfoster>

On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 12:56:59PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 08:35:22AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > 
> > We don't quite handle buffer state properly in online repair's findroot
> > routine.  If the buffer is already in-core we don't want to trash its
> > b_ops and state, so first we should try _get_buf to grab the buffer.  If
> > the buffer is loaded, we only want to verify the structure of the buffer
> > since it could be dirty and the crc hasn't yet been recalculated.
> > 
> > Only if the buffer hasn't been read in should try _read_buf, and if we
> > were the ones who read the buffer then we must be careful to oneshot the
> > buffer so that a subsequent _read_buf won't find a buffer with no ops.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@oracle.com>
> > ---
> >  fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c |   67 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> >  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c b/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c
> > index 97c3077fb005..fae50dced8bc 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/scrub/repair.c
> > @@ -697,6 +697,7 @@ xrep_findroot_block(
> >  	struct xfs_mount		*mp = ri->sc->mp;
> >  	struct xfs_buf			*bp;
> >  	struct xfs_btree_block		*btblock;
> > +	xfs_failaddr_t			fa;
> >  	xfs_daddr_t			daddr;
> >  	int				block_level;
> >  	int				error;
> > @@ -718,28 +719,68 @@ xrep_findroot_block(
> >  			return error;
> >  	}
> >  
> > -	error = xfs_trans_read_buf(mp, ri->sc->tp, mp->m_ddev_targp, daddr,
> > -			mp->m_bsize, 0, &bp, NULL);
> > -	if (error)
> > -		return error;
> > -
> >  	/*
> > -	 * Does this look like a block matching our fs and higher than any
> > -	 * other block we've found so far?  If so, reattach buffer verifiers
> > -	 * so the AIL won't complain if the buffer is also dirty.
> > +	 * Try to grab the buffer, on the off chance it's already in memory.
> > +	 * If the buffer doesn't have the DONE flag set it hasn't been read
> > +	 * into memory yet.  Drop the buffer and read the buffer with NULL
> > +	 * b_ops.  (This could race with another read_buf.)  If we get the
> > +	 * buffer back with NULL b_ops then we know that there weren't any
> > +	 * other readers.  There's a risk we won't match the buffer with any
> > +	 * of the findroot prototypes, so we want to encourage the buffer layer
> > +	 * to drop the buffer as soon as possible.
> >  	 */
> > +	bp = xfs_trans_get_buf(ri->sc->tp, mp->m_ddev_targp, daddr,
> > +			mp->m_bsize, 0);
> > +	if (!bp)
> > +		return -ENOMEM;
> > +	if (!(bp->b_flags & XBF_DONE)) {
> > +		xfs_trans_brelse(ri->sc->tp, bp);
> > +
> > +		error = xfs_trans_read_buf(mp, ri->sc->tp, mp->m_ddev_targp,
> > +				daddr, mp->m_bsize, 0, &bp, NULL);
> 
> Maybe I'm missing something, but I thought buf_ops should only be
> attached to the buffer if the call actually read the buffer from disk.
> Doesn't that mean we could continue to call xfs_trans_read_buf() here
> and do the oneshot thing below to cover the case where we read it (and
> don't want to leave around a buf with ->b_ops == NULL)?
> 
> > +		if (error)
> > +			return error;
> > +		if (!bp->b_ops)
> > +			xfs_buf_oneshot(bp);
> > +	}
> > +
> 
> It's also kind of painful that we have to re-read the same buffer
> multiple times to compare it to each fab. It seems like this could use
> some refactoring to read each buffer once, check it against each fab
> until we get through the verifier, then run the root/level processing on
> the fab that matched. Perhaps that's something for another patch though
> (make it work vs. make it fast :P)...

FWIW I /think/ Dave's suggestion will greatly simplify the code while
reducing the amount of thrashing we do here.  I'll give it a try and see
what happens.

--D

> Brian
> 
> > +	/* Does this look like a block matching our fs? */
> >  	btblock = XFS_BUF_TO_BLOCK(bp);
> >  	if (be32_to_cpu(btblock->bb_magic) != fab->magic)
> >  		goto out;
> >  	if (xfs_sb_version_hascrc(&mp->m_sb) &&
> >  	    !uuid_equal(&btblock->bb_u.s.bb_uuid, &mp->m_sb.sb_meta_uuid))
> >  		goto out;
> > -	bp->b_ops = fab->buf_ops;
> >  
> > -	/* Make sure we pass the verifiers. */
> > -	bp->b_ops->verify_read(bp);
> > -	if (bp->b_error)
> > -		goto out;
> > +	/*
> > +	 * We've matched this buffer by magic number to this findroot
> > +	 * prototype.  If there are no buffer ops attached, attach the one
> > +	 * specified by the prototype.  Otherwise, the buffer ops must match
> > +	 * the prototype.   We don't want to disturb existing b_ops.
> > +	 */
> > +	if (bp->b_ops) {
> > +		if (bp->b_ops != fab->buf_ops)
> > +			goto out;
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If the buffer was already incore (on a v5 fs) then it should
> > +		 * already have had b_ops assigned.  Call ->verify_struct to
> > +		 * check the structure.  Avoid checking the CRC because we
> > +		 * don't calculate CRCs until the buffer is written by the log.
> > +		 */
> > +		fa = bp->b_ops->verify_struct(bp);
> > +		if (fa)
> > +			goto out;
> > +	} else {
> > +		/*
> > +		 * If we have to assign buffer ops, that means that nobody's
> > +		 * checked the buffer structure or its CRC.  Do both now by
> > +		 * calling ->verify_read.
> > +		 */
> > +		bp->b_ops = fab->buf_ops;
> > +		bp->b_ops->verify_read(bp);
> > +		if (bp->b_error)
> > +			goto out;
> > +	}
> >  
> >  	/* If we've recorded a root candidate... */
> >  	block_level = xfs_btree_get_level(btblock);
> > 

  reply	other threads:[~2018-09-28  6:54 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2018-08-11 15:34 [PATCH v2 0/6] xfs-4.19: various fixes Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-11 15:35 ` [PATCH 1/6] xfs: recalculate summary counters at mount time if icount is bad Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-12  7:53   ` Allison Henderson
2018-08-13  7:46   ` Carlos Maiolino
2018-08-11 15:35 ` [PATCH 2/6] xfs: xrep_findroot_block should reject root blocks with siblings Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-12  7:53   ` Allison Henderson
2018-08-13  7:48   ` Carlos Maiolino
2018-08-13 16:56   ` Brian Foster
2018-09-27 23:20     ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-11 15:35 ` [PATCH 3/6] xfs: sanity check ag header values in xrep_calc_ag_resblks Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-12  7:55   ` Allison Henderson
2018-08-13  7:52   ` Carlos Maiolino
2018-08-11 15:35 ` [PATCH 4/6] xfs: fix buffer state management in xrep_findroot_block Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-12  7:53   ` Allison Henderson
2018-08-13  8:05   ` Carlos Maiolino
2018-08-13 16:56   ` Brian Foster
2018-09-28  0:32     ` Darrick J. Wong [this message]
2018-08-13 22:56   ` Dave Chinner
2018-09-28  0:28     ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-11 15:35 ` [PATCH 5/6] iomap: fix WARN_ON_ONCE on uninitialized variable Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-12  7:55   ` Allison Henderson
2018-08-13  8:07   ` Carlos Maiolino
2018-08-11 15:35 ` [PATCH 6/6] xfs: don't crash the vfs on a garbage inline symlink Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-12  7:54   ` Allison Henderson
2018-08-13  7:23   ` Christoph Hellwig
2018-09-28  0:31     ` Darrick J. Wong
2018-08-19 21:07   ` Xu, Wen

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=20180928003256.GI4635@magnolia \
    --to=darrick.wong@oracle.com \
    --cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
    --cc=linux-xfs@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).