xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] xfs: add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for falloca

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] xfs: add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2014 08:43:18 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <538A8064.2030304@xxxxxxx>
References: <1378132151-2685-1-git-send-email-linkinjeon@xxxxxxxxx> <53850F92.7010401@xxxxxxx> <20140527225138.GD8554@dastard> <53851836.2070301@xxxxxxx> <20140528002906.GH8554@dastard> <538743E0.70103@xxxxxxx> <20140531003918.GI14410@dastard> <538A8064.2030304@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 08:22:44PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 05/30/14 19:39, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 09:27:44AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>On 05/27/14 19:29, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 05:56:54PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>>>A 7-8 hours on spinning rust. This is my burn in test.
> >>>
> >>>Can you try to narrow the problem down? Otherwise it's going to be a
> >>>case of looking for a needle in a haystack....
> >>
> >>Nod on the needle in a hay stack if it bmbt is really corrupt.
> >>
> >>I am running fsstress from xfstests with the top commit 9b7f704, and
> >>I don't see any newer fsstress patches since then.
> >>
> >>I moved the test to another box with a kdump that works on top of
> >>tree Linux and grabbed a vmcore. I grabbed a metadata dump of the
> >>filesystem after the ASSERT. That should give some idea of what
> >>inode/block it was looking up.
> >>
> >>I sent email to Namjae when I first tripped over this problem in
> >>late April. No longer on the face of the earth and I can't look at
> >>this until the weekend.
> >
> >No worries - it looks pretty hard to hit, so it's not something we
> >urgently need to track down. Any time you can spare to try to narrow
> >it down would be great!
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dave.
> 
> The xfs_inode thinks there are 11 bmbt entries when there should only be 11:
>   i_df = {
>     if_bytes = 0xb0,              <- here 11 entries 0x10 bytes long
>     if_real_bytes = 0x100,
>     if_broot = 0xffff88009f74c680,
>     if_broot_bytes = 0x28,
>     if_flags = 0x6,
>     if_u1 = {
>       if_extents = 0xffff88033c44a000,  <-
>       if_ext_irec = 0xffff88033c44a000,
>       if_data = 0xffff88033c44a000 ""
>     },
> 
> Looking at the if_extents[]:
> 
> crash> rd ffff88033c44a000 32
> ffff88033c44a000:  8000000000000200 000000b601800021   ........!.......
> ffff88033c44a010:  0000000000004400 000000449a000007   .D..........D...
> ffff88033c44a020:  0000000000005200 000002f897e00004   .R..............
> ffff88033c44a030:  8000000000005a00 000002f898600033   .Z......3.`.....
> ffff88033c44a040:  000000000000c000 000002f89ec00001   ................
> ffff88033c44a050:  0000000000015c00 000005fdfba00010   .\..............
> ffff88033c44a060:  0000000000017c00 00000eab00400006   .|........@.....
> ffff88033c44a070:  000000000001f800 00000ec752c00004   ...........R....
> ffff88033c44a080:  0000000000020000 00000e8ae6800004   ................
> ffff88033c44a090:  0000000000020800 00000e7167e00004   ...........gq...
> ffff88033c44a0a0:  000000000002bfff ffffffc000a00001   ................
>                        ^^^^ bad  ^^^^
> It appears that current_ext is 10 (11th entry).
> The assert is on the bad entry.

I don't think that's bad - it looks like a NULL start block which
means an in-memory extent. i.e. a delayed allocation block with a
indirect reservation of 1 block and a length of ~0x40 blocks?

> xfs_db thinks there are 11 entries:
> 
> recs[1-11] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag]
> 1:[1,372748,33,1] 2:[34,140496,18,0] 3:[52,1557619,53,1]
> 4:[105,1557672,27,0] 5:[132,1557699,51,1] 6:[183,1557750,1,0]
> 7:[261,3141597,16,0] 8:[277,7690242,6,0] 9:[339,7748246,4,0]
> 10:[343,7624500,4,0] 11:[347,7572287,4,0]
> 
> xfs_db> fsb 4262789
> xfs_db> type text
> xfs_db> p
> 000:  42 4d 41 50 00 00 00 0b ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff  BMAP............
> 010:  ff ff ff ff ff ff ff ff 80 00 00 00 00 00 02 00  ................
> 020:  00 00 00 b6 01 80 00 21 00 00 00 00 00 00 44 00  ..............D.
> 030:  00 00 00 44 9a 00 00 12 80 00 00 00 00 00 68 00  ...D..........h.
> 040:  00 00 02 f8 8e 60 00 35 00 00 00 00 00 00 d2 00  .......5........
> 050:  00 00 02 f8 95 00 00 1b 80 00 00 00 00 01 08 00  ................
> 060:  00 00 02 f8 98 60 00 33 00 00 00 00 00 01 6e 00  .......3......n.
> 070:  00 00 02 f8 9e c0 00 01 00 00 00 00 00 02 0a 00  ................
> 080:  00 00 05 fd fb a0 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 02 2a 00  ................
> 090:  00 00 0e ab 00 40 00 06 00 00 00 00 00 02 a6 00  ................
> 0a0:  00 00 0e c7 52 c0 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 02 ae 00  ....R...........
> 0b0:  00 00 0e 8a e6 80 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 02 b6 00  ................
> 0c0:  00 00 0e 71 67 e0 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ...qg...........
> 0d0:  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
> 0e0:  00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00  ................
> 
> This xfs_db is before log replay, but it appears that the 3 extent is
> missing in the data fork, everything shifted up and a garbage entry
> in entry 11.

There's very few identical extents between those two lists - the
first is the same, the second has the same start offset and block
but is much shorted, and all the others are completely different.

So this is looking like a delalloc extent when the code is not
expecting it?

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
  • Re: [PATCH v2 2/7] xfs: add support FALLOC_FL_COLLAPSE_RANGE for fallocate, Dave Chinner <=