Re: Fwd: Read time tree block corruption detected

[Ferry Toth <fntoth@gmail.com>]

Hi,

Op 06-11-2020 om 00:00 schreef Qu Wenruo:
>
> On 2020/11/6 上午4:08, Ferry Toth wrote:
>> I am in a similar spot, during updating my distro (Kubuntu), I am unable
>> to update a certain package. I know which file it is:
>>
>> ~$ ls -l /usr/share/doc/libatk1.0-data
>> ls: kan geen toegang krijgen tot '/usr/share/doc/libatk1.0-data':
>> Invoer-/uitvoerfout
>>
>> This creates the following in journal:
>>
>> kernel: BTRFS critical (device sda2): corrupt leaf: root=294
>> block=1169152675840 slot=1 ino=915987, invalid inode generation: has
>> 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 5851353]
>> kernel: BTRFS error (device sda2): block=1169152675840 read time tree
>> block corruption detected
>>
>> Now, the problem: this file is on my rootfs, which is mounted. apt
>> (distribution updated) installed all packages but can't continue
>> configuring, because libatk is a dependancy. I can't delete the file
>> because of the I/O error. And btrfs check complains (I tried running RO)
>> because the file system is mounted.
>>
>> But, on the sunny side, the file system is not RO.
>>
>> Is there any way to forcefully remove the file? Or do you have a
>> recommendation how to proceed?
> Newer kernel will reject to even read the item, thus will not be able to
> remove it.
That's already the case. (input / output error)
> I guess you have to use some distro ISO to fix the fs.
And then? btrfs check --repair the disk offline?
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>> Linux = 5.6.0-1032-oem
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Ferry
>>
>> Op 05-11-2020 om 08:19 schreef Qu Wenruo:
>>>
>>> On 2020/11/5 下午3:01, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>> Qu,
>>>>
>>>> I'm wondering, was a fix for this ever implemented?
>>> Already implemented the --repair ability in latest btrfs-progs.
>>>
>>>> I recently added a
>>>> new drive to expand the array, and during the rebalance it dropped
>>>> itself back to a read only filesystem. I suspect it's related to the
>>>> issues discussed earlier in this thread. Is there anything I can do to
>>>> complete the balance? The error that caused it to drop to read only is
>>>> here: https://pastebin.com/GGYVMaiG
>>> Yep, the same cause.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Qu
>>>> Thanks!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:43 AM Tyler Richmond
>>>> <t.d.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Great, glad we got somewhere! I'll look forward to the fix!
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 9:38 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2020/8/25 下午9:30, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>> Qu,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The dump of the block is:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/ran85JJv
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I've also completed the btrfs-image, but it's almost 50gb. What's the
>>>>>>> best way to get it to you? Also, does it work with -ss or are the
>>>>>>> original filenames important?
>>>>>> 50G is too big for me to even receive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But your dump shows the problem!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's not inode generation, but inode transid, which would affect send.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This is not even checked in btrfs-progs, thus no wonder why it doesn't
>>>>>> detect them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And copy-pasted kernel message shares the same "generation" word, not
>>>>>> using proper transid to show the problem.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your dump really saved the day!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fix for kernel and btrfs-progs would come in next few days.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>> Thanks again!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 25, 2020 at 2:37 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/25 下午1:25, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Qu,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, it's btrfs-progs 5.7. Here is the result of the lowmem check:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/8Tzx23EX
>>>>>>>> That doesn't detect any inode generation problem at all, which is
>>>>>>>> not a
>>>>>>>> good sign.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you also pvode the dump for the offending block?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode generation:
>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For this case, would you please provide the tree dump of
>>>>>>>> "203510940835840" ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> # btrfs ins dump-tree -b 203510940835840 <device>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And, since btrfs-image can't dump with regular extent tree, the "-w"
>>>>>>>> dump would also help.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 4:26 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/24 上午10:47, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Qu,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Finally finished another repair and captured the output.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/ffcbwvd8
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Does that show you what you need? Or should I still do one in
>>>>>>>>>>> lowmem mode?
>>>>>>>>>> Lowmem mode (no need for --repair) is recommended since
>>>>>>>>>> original mode
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't detect the inode generation problem.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And it's already btrfs-progs v5.7 right?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> THanks,
>>>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for your help!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, Aug 23, 2020 at 12:28 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/23 上午10:49, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Well, I can guarantee that I didn't create this fs before
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2015 (just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> checked the order confirmation from when I bought the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> server), but I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> may have just used whatever was in the Ubuntu package
>>>>>>>>>>>>> manager at the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> time. So maybe I don't have a v0 ref?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Then btrfs-image shouldn't report that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is an item smaller than any valid btrfs item, normally
>>>>>>>>>>>> it means
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's a v0 ref.
>>>>>>>>>>>> If not, then it could be a bigger problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Could you please provide the full btrfs-check output?
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if possible result from "btrfs check --mode=lowmem"
>>>>>>>>>>>> would also help.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if you really go "--repair", then the full output would
>>>>>>>>>>>> also be
>>>>>>>>>>>> needed to determine what's going wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>> There is a report about "btrfs check --repair" didn't repair
>>>>>>>>>>>> the inode
>>>>>>>>>>>> generation, if that's the case we must have a bug then.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Aug 22, 2020 at 10:31 PM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/23 上午9:51, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/23 上午9:15, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is my best bet just to downgrade the kernel and then try
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to delete the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken files? Or should I rebuild from scratch? Just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> whether it's worth the time to try and figure this out or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problems stem from the FS being too old and it's beyond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> All invalid inode generations, should be able to be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repaired by latest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btrfs-check.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If not, please provide the btrfs-image dump for us to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> determine what's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 8:18 AM Tyler Richmond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <t.d.richmond@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I didn't check dmesg during the btrfs check, but that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was the only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output during the rm -f before it was forced readonly. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just checked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dmesg for inode generation values, and there are a lot
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of them.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/stZdN0ta
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The dmesg output had 990 lines containing inode generation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> However, these were at least later. I tried to do a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btrfs balance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -mconvert raid1 and it failed with an I/O error. That is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> generated these specific errors, but maybe they were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> also happening
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> during the btrfs repair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The FS is ~45TB, but the btrfs-image -c9 failed anway with:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: either extent tree is corrupted or deprecated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent ref format
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ERROR: create failed: -5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Oh, forgot this part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This means you have v0 ref?!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the fs is too old, no progs/kernel support after all.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In that case, please rollback to the last working kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and copy your data.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In fact, that v0 ref should only be in the code base for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> several weeks
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> before 2010, thus it's really too old.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The good news is, with tree-checker, we should never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> experience such
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> too-old-to-be-usable problem (at least I hope so)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 2:07 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/8/18 上午11:35, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sorry to resurrect this thread, but I just ran into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something that I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't really just ignore. I've found a folder that is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full of files
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which I guess have been broken somehow. I found a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> backup and restored
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> them, but I want to delete this folder of broken
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> files. But whenever I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> try, the fs is forced into readonly mode again. I just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> finished another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btrfs check --repair but it didn't fix the problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://pastebin.com/eTV3s3fr
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is that the full output?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No inode generation bugs?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>    I'm already on btrfs-progs v5.7. Any new suggestions?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Strange.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The detection and repair should have been merged into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> v5.5.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If your fs is small enough, would you please provide
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the "btrfs-image
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -c9" dump?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It would contain the filenames and directories names,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> contain file contents.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 9:52 AM Tyler Richmond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <t.d.richmond@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:t.d.richmond@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       5.6.1 also failed the same way. Here's the usage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> output. This is the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       part where you see I've been using RAID5 haha
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       WARNING: RAID56 detected, not implemented
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Overall:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Device size:                  60.03TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Device allocated:             98.06GiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Device unallocated:           59.93TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Device missing:                  0.00B
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Used:                         92.56GiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Free (estimated):                0.00B
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (min: 8.00EiB)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Data ratio:                       0.00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Metadata ratio:                   2.00
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Global reserve:              512.00MiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (used: 0.00B)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>           Multiple profiles:                  no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Data,RAID5: Size:40.35TiB, Used:40.12TiB (99.42%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdh        8.07TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdf        8.07TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdg        8.07TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdd        8.07TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdc        8.07TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sde        8.07TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Metadata,RAID1: Size:49.00GiB, Used:46.28GiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (94.44%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdh       34.00GiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdf       32.00GiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdg       32.00GiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       System,RAID1: Size:32.00MiB, Used:2.20MiB (6.87%)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdf       32.00MiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdg       32.00MiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       Unallocated:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdh        2.81TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdf        2.81TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdg        2.81TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdd        1.03TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sdc        1.03TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>          /dev/sde        1.03TiB
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:47 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <mailto:quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > On 2020/5/8 下午1:12, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > > If this is saying there's no extra space for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> metadata, is that why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > > adding more files often makes the system hang
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for 30-90s? Is there
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > > anything I should do about that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > I'm not sure about the hang though.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > It would be nice to give more info to diagnosis.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > The output of 'btrfs fi usage' is useful for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space usage problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > But the common idea is, to keep at 1~2 Gi
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unallocated (not avaiable
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > space in vanilla df command) space for btrfs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > > Thank you so much for all of your help. I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> love how flexible BTRFS is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > > but when things go wrong it's very hard for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> me to troubleshoot.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > > On Fri, May 8, 2020 at 1:07 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <mailto:quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> On 2020/5/8 下午12:23, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> Something went wrong:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> Reinitialize checksum tree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> Unable to find block group for 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> Unable to find block group for 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> Unable to find block group for 0
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> ctree.c:2272: split_leaf: BUG_ON `1`
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> triggered, value 1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> btrfs(+0x6dd94)[0x55a933af7d94]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> btrfs(+0x71b94)[0x55a933afbb94]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btrfs(btrfs_search_slot+0x11f0)[0x55a933afd6c8]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btrfs(btrfs_csum_file_block+0x432)[0x55a933b19d09]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> btrfs(+0x360b2)[0x55a933ac00b2]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> btrfs(+0x46a3e)[0x55a933ad0a3e]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> btrfs(main+0x98)[0x55a933a9fe88]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>      
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf3)[0x7f263ed550b3]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> btrfs(_start+0x2e)[0x55a933a9fa0e]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> Aborted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> This means no space for extra metadata...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> Anyway the csum tree problem shouldn't be a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big thing, you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       could leave
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> it and call it a day.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> BTW, as long as btrfs check reports no extra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> problem for the inode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> generation, it should be pretty safe to use
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the fs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> I just noticed I have btrfs-progs 5.6
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> installed and 5.6.1 is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> available. I'll let that try overnight?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:11 PM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>> On 2020/5/7 下午11:52, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> Thank you for helping. The end result of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the scan was:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> [1/7] checking root items
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> [2/7] checking extents
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> [3/7] checking free space cache
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> [4/7] checking fs roots
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>> Good news is, your fs is still mostly fine.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> [5/7] checking only csums items (without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> verifying data)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> there are no extents for csum range 0-69632
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> csum exists for 0-69632 but there is no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> extent record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> there are no extents for csum range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 946692096-946827264
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> csum exists for 946692096-946827264 but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no extent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> there are no extents for csum range
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 946831360-947912704
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> csum exists for 946831360-947912704 but
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there is no extent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       record
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> ERROR: errors found in csum tree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>> Only extent tree is corrupted.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>> Normally btrfs check --init-csum-tree
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should be able to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       handle it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>> But still, please be sure you're using the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> latest btrfs-progs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       to fix it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> [6/7] checking root refs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> [7/7] checking quota groups skipped (not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enabled on this FS)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> found 44157956026368 bytes used, error(s)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> total csum bytes: 42038602716
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> total tree bytes: 49688616960
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> total fs tree bytes: 1256427520
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> total extent tree bytes: 1709105152
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> btree space waste bytes: 3172727316
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> file data blocks allocated: 261625653436416
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>  referenced 47477768499200
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> What do I need to do to fix all of this?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:52 AM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> On 2020/5/7 下午1:43, Tyler Richmond wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Well, the repair doesn't look terribly
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> successful.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> This means there are more problems, not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> only the hash name
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       mismatch.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> This means the fs is already corrupted,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the name hash is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       just one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> unrelated symptom.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> The only good news is, btrfs-progs abort
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the transaction,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       thus no
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> further damage to the fs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> Please run a plain btrfs-check to show
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what's the problem
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       first.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent transid verify failed on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 218620880703488 wanted
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       6875841 found 6876224
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> Ignoring transid failure
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bytenr=225049956061184
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       item=84
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> parent level=1
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>                                              
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> child level=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: failed to zero log tree: -17
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> ERROR: attempt to start transaction
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> over already running one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> WARNING: reserved space leaked,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> flag=0x4 bytes_reserved=4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066086400 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066086400 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       225049066086400 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066094592 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066094592 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       225049066094592 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066102784 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066102784 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       225049066102784 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066131456 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> extent buffer leak: start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 225049066131456 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       225049066131456 len 4096
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> What is going on?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:30 PM Tyler
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Richmond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <t.d.richmond@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:t.d.richmond@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>> Chris, I had used the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mountpoint in the command.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       I just edited
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>> it in the email to be /mountpoint for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> consistency.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>> Qu, I'll try the repair. Fingers crossed!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:13 PM Qu Wenruo
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mailto:quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> On 2020/5/7 上午5:54, Tyler Richmond
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> Hello,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> I looked up this error and it
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basically says ask a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       developer to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> determine if it's a false error or
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not. I just started
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       getting some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> slow response times, and looked at
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the dmesg log to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       find a ton of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> these errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.446299] BTRFS critical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (device sdh): corrupt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       leaf: root=5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ino=1311670, invalid inode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       generation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6875827]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.449823] BTRFS error (device
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sdh):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       block=203510940835840 read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.459238] BTRFS critical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (device sdh): corrupt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       leaf: root=5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ino=1311670, invalid inode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       generation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6875827]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.462773] BTRFS error (device
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sdh):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       block=203510940835840 read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.464711] BTRFS critical
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (device sdh): corrupt
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       leaf: root=5
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ino=1311670, invalid inode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       generation:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6875827]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> [192088.468457] BTRFS error (device
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sdh):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       block=203510940835840 read
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> btrfs device stats, however, doesn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show any errors.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> Is there anything I should do about
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this, or should I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       just continue
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> using my array as normal?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> This is caused by older kernel
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> underflow inode generation.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> Latest btrfs-progs can fix it, using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> btrfs check --repair.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> Or you can go safer, by manually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> locating the inode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       using its inode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> number (1311670), and copy it to some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new location using
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       previous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> working kernel, then delete the old
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> file, copy the new
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       one back to fix it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>> Qu
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>> Thank you!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       > >>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>       >
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>