IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
After a sudden power failure we may end up with a space cache on disk that
is not valid and needs to be rebuilt from scratch.
If that happens, during log replay when we attempt to pin an extent buffer
from a log tree, at btrfs_pin_extent_for_log_replay(), we do not wait for
the space cache to be rebuilt through the call to:
btrfs_cache_block_group(cache, 1);
That is because that only waits for the task (work queue job) that loads
the space cache to change the cache state from BTRFS_CACHE_FAST to any
other value. That is ok when the space cache on disk exists and is valid,
but when the cache is not valid and needs to be rebuilt, it ends up
returning as soon as the cache state changes to BTRFS_CACHE_STARTED (done
at caching_thread()).
So this means that we can end up trying to unpin a range which is not yet
marked as free in the block group. This results in the call to
btrfs_remove_free_space() to return -EINVAL to
btrfs_pin_extent_for_log_replay(), which in turn makes the log replay fail
as well as mounting the filesystem. More specifically the -EINVAL comes
from free_space_cache.c:remove_from_bitmap(), because the requested range
is not marked as free space (ones in the bitmap), we have the following
condition triggered:
static noinline int remove_from_bitmap(struct btrfs_free_space_ctl *ctl,
(...)
if (ret < 0 || search_start != *offset)
return -EINVAL;
(...)
It's the "search_start != *offset" that results in the condition being
evaluated to true.
When this happens we got the following in dmesg/syslog:
[72383.415114] BTRFS: device fsid 32b95b69-0ea9-496a-9f02-3f5a56dc9322 devid 1 transid 1432 /dev/sdb scanned by mount (3816007)
[72383.417837] BTRFS info (device sdb): disk space caching is enabled
[72383.418536] BTRFS info (device sdb): has skinny extents
[72383.423846] BTRFS info (device sdb): start tree-log replay
[72383.426416] BTRFS warning (device sdb): block group 30408704 has wrong amount of free space
[72383.427686] BTRFS warning (device sdb): failed to load free space cache for block group 30408704, rebuilding it now
[72383.454291] BTRFS: error (device sdb) in btrfs_recover_log_trees:6203: errno=-22 unknown (Failed to pin buffers while recovering log root tree.)
[72383.456725] BTRFS: error (device sdb) in btrfs_replay_log:2253: errno=-22 unknown (Failed to recover log tree)
[72383.460241] BTRFS error (device sdb): open_ctree failed
We also mark the range for the extent buffer in the excluded extents io
tree. That is fine when the space cache is valid on disk and we can load
it, in which case it causes no problems.
However, for the case where we need to rebuild the space cache, because it
is either invalid or it is missing, having the extent buffer range marked
in the excluded extents io tree leads to a -EINVAL failure from the call
to btrfs_remove_free_space(), resulting in the log replay and mount to
fail. This is because by having the range marked in the excluded extents
io tree, the caching thread ends up never adding the range of the extent
buffer as free space in the block group since the calls to
add_new_free_space(), called from load_extent_tree_free(), filter out any
ranges that are marked as excluded extents.
So fix this by making sure that during log replay we wait for the caching
task to finish completely when we need to rebuild a space cache, and also
drop the need to mark the extent buffer range in the excluded extents io
tree, as well as clearing ranges from that tree at
btrfs_finish_extent_commit().
This started to happen with some frequency on large filesystems having
block groups with a lot of fragmentation since the recent commit
e747853cae ("btrfs: load free space cache asynchronously"), but in
fact the issue has been there for years, it was just much less likely
to happen.
Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
9ad6d91f05