Re: 5.3-rc1 regression with XFS log recovery

Ming Lei
2019-08-21T01:56:39Z

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 07:44:09AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 05:24:25PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 04:13:26PM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 07:53:20AM +0200, hch@lst.de wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 02:41:35PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > > With the following debug patch. Based on that I think I'll just
> > > > > > formally submit the vmalloc switch as we're at -rc5, and then we
> > > > > > can restart the unaligned slub allocation drama..
> > > > >
> > > > > This still doesn't make sense to me, because the pmem and brd code
> > > > > have no aligment limitations in their make_request code - they can
> > > > > handle byte adressing and should not have any problem at all with
> > > > > 8 byte aligned memory in bios.
> > > > >
> > > > > Digging a little furhter, I note that both brd and pmem use
> > > > > identical mechanisms to marshall data in and out of bios, so they
> > > > > are likely to have the same issue.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, brd_make_request() does:
> > > > >
> > > > > bio_for_each_segment(bvec, bio, iter) {
> > > > > unsigned int len = bvec.bv_len;
> > > > > int err;
> > > > >
> > > > > err = brd_do_bvec(brd, bvec.bv_page, len, bvec.bv_offset,
> > > > > bio_op(bio), sector);
> > > > > if (err)
> > > > > goto io_error;
> > > > > sector += len >> SECTOR_SHIFT;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > So, the code behind bio_for_each_segment() splits multi-page bvecs
> > > > > into individual pages, which are passed to brd_do_bvec(). An
> > > > > unaligned 4kB io traces out as:
> > > > >
> > > > > [ 121.295550] p,o,l,s 00000000a77f0146,768,3328,0x7d0048
> > > > > [ 121.297635] p,o,l,s 000000006ceca91e,0,768,0x7d004e
> > > > >
> > > > > i.e. page offset len sector
> > > > > 00000000a77f0146 768 3328 0x7d0048
> > > > > 000000006ceca91e 0 768 0x7d004e
> > > > >
> > > > > You should be able to guess what the problems are from this.
> > >
> > > The problem should be that offset of '768' is passed to bio_add_page().
> >
> > It can be quite hard to deal with non-512 aligned sector buffer, since
> > one sector buffer may cross two pages, so far one workaround I thought
> > of is to not merge such IO buffer into one bvec.
> >
> > Verma, could you try the following patch?
> >
> > diff --git a/block/bio.c b/block/bio.c
> > index 24a496f5d2e2..49deab2ac8c4 100644
> > --- a/block/bio.c
> > +++ b/block/bio.c
> > @@ -769,6 +769,9 @@ bool __bio_try_merge_page(struct bio *bio, struct page *page,
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE(bio_flagged(bio, BIO_CLONED)))
> > return false;
> >
> > + if (off & 511)
> > + return false;
>
> What does this acheive? It only prevents the unaligned segment from
> being merged, it doesn't prevent it from being added to a new bvec.

The current issue is that block layer won't handle such case, as I
mentioned, one sector buffer may cross two pages, then it can't be
splitted successfully, so simply put into one new bvec just as
before enabling multi-page bvec.

>
> However, the case here is that:
>
> > > > > i.e. page offset len sector
> > > > > 00000000a77f0146 768 3328 0x7d0048
> > > > > 000000006ceca91e 0 768 0x7d004e
>
> The second page added to the bvec is actually offset alignedr. Hence
> the check would do nothing on the first page because the bvec array
> is empty (so goes into a new bvec anyway), and the check on the
> second page would do nothing an it would merge with first because
> the offset is aligned correctly. In both cases, the length of the
> segment is not aligned, so that needs to be checked, too.

What the patch changes is the bvec stored in bio, the above bvec is
actually built in-flight.

So if the 1st page added to bio is (768, 512), then finally
bio_for_each_segment() will generate the 1st page as (768, 512), then
everything will be fine.

>
> IOWs, I think the check needs to be in bio_add_page, it needs to
> check both the offset and length for alignment, and it needs to grab

The length has to be 512 aligned, otherwise it is simply bug in fs.

> the alignment from queue_dma_alignment(), not use a hard coded value
> of 511.

Now the policy for bio_add_page() is to not checking any queue limit
given we don't know what is the actual limit for the finally IO, even the
queue isn't set when bio_add_page() is called.

If the upper layer won't pass slub buffer which is > PAGE_SIZE, block
layer may handle it well without the 512 alignment check.

Thanks,
Ming