xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: interesting MD-xfs bug

To: NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: interesting MD-xfs bug
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:31:57 +1000
Cc: Joe Landman <joe.landman@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-raid <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150410093652.73204748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5526E8E9.3030805@xxxxxxxxx> <20150409221846.GG13731@dastard> <5526FB2A.8060704@xxxxxxxxx> <20150409225322.GH13731@dastard> <20150409231035.GI13731@dastard> <20150410093652.73204748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 09:36:52AM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 09:10:35 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 08:53:22AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 06:20:26PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > On 04/09/2015 06:18 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > >On Thu, Apr 09, 2015 at 05:02:33PM -0400, Joe Landman wrote:
> > > > >>If I build an MD raid0 with a non power of 2 chunk size, it appears
> > > > >>that I can mkfs.xfs a file system, but it doesn't show up in blkid
> > > > >>and is not mountable.  Yet, using a power of 2 chunk size, this does
> > > > >>work correctly.   This is kernel 3.18.9.
> > > > >>
> > > > 
> > > > [...]
> > > > 
> > > > >That looks more like a blkid or udev problem. try using blkid -p so
> > > > >that it doesn't look up the cache but directly probes devices for
> > > > >the signatures. strace might tell you a bit more, too. And if the
> > > > >filesystem mounts, then it definitely isn't an XFS problem ;)
> > > > 
> > > > Thats the thing, it didn't mount, even when I used the device name
> > > > directly.
> > > 
> > > Ok, that's interesting. Let me see if I can reproduce it locally. If
> > > you don't hear otherwise, tracing would still be useful. Thanks for
> > > the bug report, Joe.
> > 
> > No luck - md doesn't allow the device to be activated on 4.0-rc7:
> > 
> > $ sudo mdadm --version
> > mdadm - v3.3.2 - 21st August 2014
> > $ uname -a
> > Linux test4 4.0.0-rc7-dgc+ #882 SMP Fri Apr 10 08:50:52 AEST 2015 x86_64 
> > GNU/Linux
> > $ sudo wipefs -a /dev/vd[ab]
> > /dev/vda: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00001000 (linux_raid_member): fc 
> > 4e 2b a9
> > /dev/vdb: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00001000 (linux_raid_member): fc 
> > 4e 2b a9
> > $ sudo mdadm --create /dev/md20 --level=0 --metadata=1.2 --chunk=1152 
> > --auto=yes --raid-disks=2 /dev/vd[ab]
> 
> Weird.  Works for me.
> Any messages in 'dmesg' ??
> How big are /dev/vd[ab]??

vda is 5GB, vdb is 20GB

dmesg:

[  125.131340] md: bind<vda>
[  125.134547] md: bind<vdb>
[  125.139669] md: personality for level 0 is not loaded!
[  125.141302] md: md20 stopped.
[  125.141986] md: unbind<vdb>
[  125.160100] md: export_rdev(vdb)
[  125.161751] md: unbind<vda>
[  125.180126] md: export_rdev(vda)

Oh, curious. Going from 4.0-rc4 to 4.0-rc7, and make oldconfig
has resulted in:

# CONFIG_MD_RAID0 is not set

Ok, so with that fixed, it's still horribly broken.

RAID 0 on different sized devices should result in a device that is
twice the size of the smallest devices:

$ sudo mdadm --create /dev/md20 --level=raid0 --metadata=1.2 --chunk=1024 
--auto=yes --raid-disks=2 /dev/vd[ab]
mdadm: array /dev/md20 started.
$ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4] 
md20 : active raid0 vdb[1] vda[0]
      26206208 blocks super 1.2 1024k chunks
      
unused devices: <none>
$ grep "md\|vd[ab]" /proc/partitions 
 253        0    5242880 vda
 253       16   20971520 vdb
   9       20   26206208 md20
$

Oh, "RAID0" is not actually RAID 0 - that's the size I'd expect from
a linear mapping. Half way through writing that block device, the IO
stats change in an obvious way:

Device:         r/s     w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s
vda            0.00  144.00     0.00    48.00
vdb            0.00  145.20     0.00    48.40
md20           0.00  290.40     0.00    96.80

Device:         r/s     w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s
vda            0.00   56.40     0.00    18.80
vdb            0.00  229.20     0.00    76.40
md20           0.00  285.20     0.00    95.10

Device:         r/s     w/s    rMB/s    wMB/s
vda            0.00    0.00     0.00     0.00
vdb            0.00  290.40     0.00    96.80
md20           0.00  290.80     0.00    96.90

So it's actually a stripe for the first 10GB, then some kind of
concatenated mapping of the remainder of the single device. That's
not what I expected, but it's also clearly not the problem.

Anyway, change the stripe size to 1152:

sudo mdadm --stop /dev/md20
mdadm: stopped /dev/md20
$ sudo wipefs -a /dev/vd[ab]
/dev/vda: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00001000 (linux_raid_member): fc 4e 
2b a9
/dev/vdb: 4 bytes were erased at offset 0x00001000 (linux_raid_member): fc 4e 
2b a9
$ sudo mdadm --create /dev/md20 --level=raid0 --metadata=1.2 --chunk=1152 
--auto=yes --raid-disks=2 /dev/vd[ab]
mdadm: array /dev/md20 started.
$ sudo xfs_io -fd -c "pwrite -b 4m 0 25g" /dev/md20
wrote 26831355904/26843545600 bytes at offset 0
24.989 GiB, 6398 ops; 0:00:16.00 (1.530 GiB/sec and 391.8556 ops/sec)
$

Wait, what? Neil, did you put a flux capacitor in MD? :P 

The underlying drive is only capable of 100MB/s - 25GB of sequential
direct IO does not complete in 16 seconds on such a drive. But
there's also a 1GB BBWC in front of the physical drives (HW RAID1),
but even so, this write rate could only occur if every write is
hitting the BBWC. And so it is:

$ sudo xfs_io -fd -c "pwrite -b 4m 0 25g" /dev/md20 & iostat -d -m 1
...
Device:            tps    MB_read/s    MB_wrtn/s    MB_read    MB_wrtn
vda            4214.00         0.00      1516.99          0       1516
vdb               0.00         0.00         0.00          0          0
md20           4223.00         0.00      1520.00          0       1520

Device:            tps    MB_read/s    MB_wrtn/s    MB_read    MB_wrtn
vda            2986.00         0.00      1075.01          0       1075
vdb            1174.00         0.00       422.88          0        422
md20           4154.00         0.00      1496.00          0       1496

Device:            tps    MB_read/s    MB_wrtn/s    MB_read    MB_wrtn
vda               0.00         0.00         0.00          0          0
vdb            4376.00         0.00      1575.12          0       1575
md20           4378.00         0.00      1576.00          0       1576

Device:            tps    MB_read/s    MB_wrtn/s    MB_read    MB_wrtn
vda            2682.00         0.00       965.74          0        965
vdb            1650.00         0.00       594.00          0        594
md20           4334.00         0.00      1560.00          0       1560

Device:            tps    MB_read/s    MB_wrtn/s    MB_read    MB_wrtn
vda            4518.00         0.00      1626.26          0       1626
vdb             138.00         0.00        49.50          0         49
md20           4656.00         0.00      1676.00          0       1676

Device:            tps    MB_read/s    MB_wrtn/s    MB_read    MB_wrtn
vda               0.00         0.00         0.00          0          0
vdb            4214.00         0.00      1517.48          0       1517
md20           4210.00         0.00      1516.00          0       1516
.....

Note how it is cycling from one drive to the other with about a 2s
period?

Yup, blocktrace on /dev/vda shows it is, indeed, hitting the BBWC
because the block mapping is clearly broken:

253,0    4        1     0.000000000  6972  Q  WS 8192 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4        5     0.000068012  6972  Q  WS 8192 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4        9     0.000093266  6972  Q  WS 8192 + 288 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       13     0.000129722  6972  Q  WS 8193 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       17     0.000176872  6972  Q  WS 8193 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       21     0.000205566  6972  Q  WS 8193 + 288 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       25     0.000240846  6972  Q  WS 8194 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       29     0.000284990  6972  Q  WS 8194 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       33     0.000313276  6972  Q  WS 8194 + 288 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       37     0.000352330  6972  Q  WS 8195 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       41     0.000374272  6972  Q  WS 8195 + 272 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       56     0.001215857  6972  Q  WS 8195 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       60     0.001252697  6972  Q  WS 8195 + 16 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       64     0.001284517  6972  Q  WS 8196 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       68     0.001326130  6972  Q  WS 8196 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       72     0.001355050  6972  Q  WS 8196 + 288 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       76     0.001393777  6972  Q  WS 8197 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       80     0.001439547  6972  Q  WS 8197 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       84     0.001466097  6972  Q  WS 8197 + 288 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       88     0.001501267  6972  Q  WS 8198 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       92     0.001545863  6972  Q  WS 8198 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4       96     0.001571500  6972  Q  WS 8198 + 288 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      100     0.001584620  6972  Q  WS 8199 + 256 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      116     0.002730034  6972  Q  WS 8199 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      120     0.002792351  6972  Q  WS 8199 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      124     0.002810937  6972  Q  WS 8199 + 32 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      128     0.002842047  6972  Q  WS 8200 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      132     0.002889087  6972  Q  WS 8200 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      136     0.002916894  6972  Q  WS 8200 + 288 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      140     0.002952334  6972  Q  WS 8201 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      144     0.002996101  6972  Q  WS 8201 + 1008 [xfs_io]
253,0    4      148     0.003022401  6972  Q  WS 8201 + 288 [xfs_io]


Multiple IOs to teh same sector, then the sector increments by 1 and
we get more IOs to the same sector offset. After about a second the
mapping shifts IO to the other block device as it slowly increments
the sector, and that's why we see that cycling behaviour.

IOWs, something is going wrong with the MD block mapping when the
RAID chunk size is not a power of 2....

Over to you, Neil....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>