Re: blktrace and xfs_db block offset mismatch

[Sushma R <gsushma@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please ignore my last comment. It doesn't make sense since file system is mounted on a disk partition.

>>Also, I'm not familiar enough with blktrace output off the top of my
>>head so perhaps not an issue, but it's not clear to me whether the
>>output above could have been converted/adjusted to a raw address based
>>on a device partition.

Yes, it appears that blktrace adds device partition offset.

Thanks!!

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Sushma R <gsushma@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks Brian.

I'm trying to understand how the internal XFS structures affect this mapping (http://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/papers/xfs_filesystem_structure.pdf)

xfs_bmap on the file matches that reported by extents in the file inode using xfs_db.

Other conversions under xfs_db

xfs_db> convert fsb 2621481 agno

0x0 (0)

xfs_db> convert fsb 2621481 agbno

0x280029 (2621481)

xfs_db> convert fsb 2621481 daddr

0x1400148 (20971848)

I tried dd command with directio option and still blktrace reports the same raw block number as earlier.

8,17 Â 3 Â Â Â Â1 Â Â 0.000000000 Â6999 ÂD Â R 20973896 + 1 [dd]

I'm using xfs_db with the partition i.e. "xfs_db -r /dev/sdb1"

However, if I use it on the whole disk "xfs_db -r /dev/sdb", it gives the following error

xfs_db: cannot init perag data (117)

Does this suggest something?

Thanks,

Sushma

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 7:38 AM, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 12:32:21AM -0700, Sushma R wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I ran blktrace while reading a file on XFS partition and here's it's output.
>
> 8,17Â Â3Â Â Â Â 1Â Â 22.065944956Â 5489Â DÂ ÂR 20973896 + 8 [cat]
>
> Using xfs_db, I dumped the inode for the same file and it shows the
> following as its data extents.
>
> u.bmx[0] = [startoff,startblock,blockcount,extentflag] 0:[0,2621481,1,0]
>
> I understand that blktrace reports in 512-byte sectors while xfs_db in
> filesystem block size (which is the default 4KB on my setup).
> Converting blktrace offset to fs block = 2621737 which is close to the data
> extent startblock (2621481), but still off by 256 fs blocks.
>
> Could someone please help understand the reason for this mismatch?
>

I believe you are comparing a raw read of a device to an internal XFS
fsb, the latter of which is encoded to account for the internal
structure of XFS (e.g., allocation groups). You might want to take a
look at xfs_bmap on the file to see the actual disk blocks.

The fsb to daddr conversion depends on the geometry of the fs, but you
can get the various values with xfs_db as well. E.g.:

convert fsb 2621481 agno    # ag number
convert fsb 2621481 agbno   Â# relative ag block nr
convert fsb 2621481 daddr   Â# disk address

Also, I'm not familiar enough with blktrace output off the top of my
head so perhaps not an issue, but it's not clear to me whether the
output above could have been converted/adjusted to a raw address based
on a device partition.

You might also want to verify you're looking at the actual file read vs.
a directory/inode lookup or block mapping lookup or something else. I
see you're running cat, a direct I/O read via dd might ensure you aren't
just pulling file data from cache.

Brian

> Thanks,
> Sushma

> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs