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 16:05:20 +1000
Cc: Joe Landman <joe.landman@xxxxxxxxx>, linux-raid <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20150410132253.644e3660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <5526E8E9.3030805@xxxxxxxxx> <20150409221846.GG13731@dastard> <5526FB2A.8060704@xxxxxxxxx> <20150409225322.GH13731@dastard> <20150409231035.GI13731@dastard> <20150410093652.73204748@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20150410013156.GH15810@dastard> <20150410132253.644e3660@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 01:22:53PM +1000, NeilBrown wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Apr 2015 11:31:57 +1000 Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> > 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....
> 
> That's .... not good.  Not good at all.
> 
> This should help. It seems that non-power-of-2 chunksizes aren't widely used.

I haven't tested the patch, but if you want to make sure that you
get regular smoke testing on this sort of config, write a simple
test for xfstests and throw it in the generic group. e.g. create
multiple loop devices, then iterate over various MD configurations
running a basic data integrity tests on them. e.g. mkfs, mount,
write a 20MB pattened file, fsync, unmount, mount, md5sum it,
unlink, unmount, check filesystem.

Something like that will get run all the time by FS developers and
QE departments, so it's a good way of smoke testing configurations
that don't usually get tested without even having to think about
it...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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