* [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device
@ 2017-10-09 17:38 Liu Bo
2017-10-09 18:02 ` Liu Bo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Liu Bo @ 2017-10-09 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-block
We've avoided data losing raid profile when doing balance, but it
turns out that deleting a device could also result in the same
problem.
This fixes the problem by creating an empty data chunk before
relocating the data chunk.
Metadata/System chunk are supposed to have non-zero bytes all the time
so their raid profile is persistent.
Reported-by: James Alandt <James.Alandt@wdc.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 4a72c45..3f48bcd 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
u64 logical, u64 *length,
struct btrfs_bio **bbio_ret,
int mirror_num, int need_raid_map);
+static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ u64 chunk_offset);
DEFINE_MUTEX(uuid_mutex);
static LIST_HEAD(fs_uuids);
@@ -3476,7 +3478,6 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
u32 count_meta = 0;
u32 count_sys = 0;
int chunk_reserved = 0;
- u64 bytes_used = 0;
/* step one make some room on all the devices */
devices = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
@@ -3635,28 +3636,22 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
goto loop;
}
- ASSERT(fs_info->data_sinfo);
- spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
- bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
- spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
-
- if ((chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) &&
- !chunk_reserved && !bytes_used) {
- trans = btrfs_start_transaction(chunk_root, 0);
- if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
- mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
- ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
- goto error;
- }
-
- ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
- BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
- btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
+ if (!chunk_reserved) {
+ /*
+ * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
+ * which could potentially end up with losing data's
+ * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
+ * advance.
+ */
+ ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info,
+ found_key.offset);
if (ret < 0) {
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
+ ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
goto error;
+ } else if (ret == 1) {
+ chunk_reserved = 1;
}
- chunk_reserved = 1;
}
ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, found_key.offset);
@@ -4327,6 +4322,48 @@ int btrfs_check_uuid_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
}
/*
+ * return 1 : allocate a data chunk successfully,
+ * return <0: errors during allocating a data chunk,
+ * return 0 : no need to allocate a data chunk.
+ */
+static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ u64 chunk_offset)
+{
+ struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache;
+ u64 bytes_used;
+ u64 chunk_type;
+
+ cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, chunk_offset);
+ ASSERT(cache);
+ chunk_type = cache->flags;
+ btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
+
+ if (chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) {
+ spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
+ bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
+ spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
+
+ if (!bytes_used) {
+ struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
+ int ret;
+
+ trans = btrfs_join_transaction(fs_info->tree_root);
+ if (IS_ERR(trans))
+ return PTR_ERR(trans);
+
+ ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
+ BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
+ btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ return 1;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/*
* shrinking a device means finding all of the device extents past
* the new size, and then following the back refs to the chunks.
* The chunk relocation code actually frees the device extent
@@ -4419,6 +4456,18 @@ int btrfs_shrink_device(struct btrfs_device *device, u64 new_size)
chunk_offset = btrfs_dev_extent_chunk_offset(l, dev_extent);
btrfs_release_path(path);
+ /*
+ * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
+ * which could potentially end up with losing data's
+ * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
+ * advance.
+ */
+ ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
+ goto done;
+ }
+
ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
if (ret && ret != -ENOSPC)
--
2.9.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device
2017-10-09 17:38 [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device Liu Bo
@ 2017-10-09 18:02 ` Liu Bo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Liu Bo @ 2017-10-09 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-block
Please ignore this, I put the wrong ML.
Thanks,
-liubo
On Mon, Oct 09, 2017 at 11:38:09AM -0600, Liu Bo wrote:
> We've avoided data losing raid profile when doing balance, but it
> turns out that deleting a device could also result in the same
> problem.
>
> This fixes the problem by creating an empty data chunk before
> relocating the data chunk.
>
> Metadata/System chunk are supposed to have non-zero bytes all the time
> so their raid profile is persistent.
>
> Reported-by: James Alandt <James.Alandt@wdc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 4a72c45..3f48bcd 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> u64 logical, u64 *length,
> struct btrfs_bio **bbio_ret,
> int mirror_num, int need_raid_map);
> +static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + u64 chunk_offset);
>
> DEFINE_MUTEX(uuid_mutex);
> static LIST_HEAD(fs_uuids);
> @@ -3476,7 +3478,6 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> u32 count_meta = 0;
> u32 count_sys = 0;
> int chunk_reserved = 0;
> - u64 bytes_used = 0;
>
> /* step one make some room on all the devices */
> devices = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
> @@ -3635,28 +3636,22 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> goto loop;
> }
>
> - ASSERT(fs_info->data_sinfo);
> - spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> - bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
> - spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> -
> - if ((chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) &&
> - !chunk_reserved && !bytes_used) {
> - trans = btrfs_start_transaction(chunk_root, 0);
> - if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
> - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> - ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> - goto error;
> - }
> -
> - ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
> - BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
> - btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
> + if (!chunk_reserved) {
> + /*
> + * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
> + * which could potentially end up with losing data's
> + * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
> + * advance.
> + */
> + ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info,
> + found_key.offset);
> if (ret < 0) {
> mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> + ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> goto error;
> + } else if (ret == 1) {
> + chunk_reserved = 1;
> }
> - chunk_reserved = 1;
> }
>
> ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, found_key.offset);
> @@ -4327,6 +4322,48 @@ int btrfs_check_uuid_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> }
>
> /*
> + * return 1 : allocate a data chunk successfully,
> + * return <0: errors during allocating a data chunk,
> + * return 0 : no need to allocate a data chunk.
> + */
> +static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + u64 chunk_offset)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache;
> + u64 bytes_used;
> + u64 chunk_type;
> +
> + cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> + ASSERT(cache);
> + chunk_type = cache->flags;
> + btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
> +
> + if (chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) {
> + spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> + bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
> + spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> +
> + if (!bytes_used) {
> + struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
> + int ret;
> +
> + trans = btrfs_join_transaction(fs_info->tree_root);
> + if (IS_ERR(trans))
> + return PTR_ERR(trans);
> +
> + ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
> + BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
> + btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 1;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * shrinking a device means finding all of the device extents past
> * the new size, and then following the back refs to the chunks.
> * The chunk relocation code actually frees the device extent
> @@ -4419,6 +4456,18 @@ int btrfs_shrink_device(struct btrfs_device *device, u64 new_size)
> chunk_offset = btrfs_dev_extent_chunk_offset(l, dev_extent);
> btrfs_release_path(path);
>
> + /*
> + * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
> + * which could potentially end up with losing data's
> + * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
> + * advance.
> + */
> + ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> if (ret && ret != -ENOSPC)
> --
> 2.9.4
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device
@ 2017-10-09 18:01 Liu Bo
2017-10-10 6:57 ` Nikolay Borisov
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Liu Bo @ 2017-10-09 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-btrfs
We've avoided data losing raid profile when doing balance, but it
turns out that deleting a device could also result in the same
problem.
This fixes the problem by creating an empty data chunk before
relocating the data chunk.
Metadata/System chunk are supposed to have non-zero bytes all the time
so their raid profile is persistent.
Reported-by: James Alandt <James.Alandt@wdc.com>
Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
---
fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 4a72c45..3f48bcd 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
u64 logical, u64 *length,
struct btrfs_bio **bbio_ret,
int mirror_num, int need_raid_map);
+static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ u64 chunk_offset);
DEFINE_MUTEX(uuid_mutex);
static LIST_HEAD(fs_uuids);
@@ -3476,7 +3478,6 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
u32 count_meta = 0;
u32 count_sys = 0;
int chunk_reserved = 0;
- u64 bytes_used = 0;
/* step one make some room on all the devices */
devices = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
@@ -3635,28 +3636,22 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
goto loop;
}
- ASSERT(fs_info->data_sinfo);
- spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
- bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
- spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
-
- if ((chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) &&
- !chunk_reserved && !bytes_used) {
- trans = btrfs_start_transaction(chunk_root, 0);
- if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
- mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
- ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
- goto error;
- }
-
- ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
- BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
- btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
+ if (!chunk_reserved) {
+ /*
+ * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
+ * which could potentially end up with losing data's
+ * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
+ * advance.
+ */
+ ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info,
+ found_key.offset);
if (ret < 0) {
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
+ ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
goto error;
+ } else if (ret == 1) {
+ chunk_reserved = 1;
}
- chunk_reserved = 1;
}
ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, found_key.offset);
@@ -4327,6 +4322,48 @@ int btrfs_check_uuid_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
}
/*
+ * return 1 : allocate a data chunk successfully,
+ * return <0: errors during allocating a data chunk,
+ * return 0 : no need to allocate a data chunk.
+ */
+static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
+ u64 chunk_offset)
+{
+ struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache;
+ u64 bytes_used;
+ u64 chunk_type;
+
+ cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, chunk_offset);
+ ASSERT(cache);
+ chunk_type = cache->flags;
+ btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
+
+ if (chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) {
+ spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
+ bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
+ spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
+
+ if (!bytes_used) {
+ struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
+ int ret;
+
+ trans = btrfs_join_transaction(fs_info->tree_root);
+ if (IS_ERR(trans))
+ return PTR_ERR(trans);
+
+ ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
+ BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
+ btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
+ if (ret < 0)
+ return ret;
+
+ return 1;
+ }
+ }
+ return 0;
+}
+
+/*
* shrinking a device means finding all of the device extents past
* the new size, and then following the back refs to the chunks.
* The chunk relocation code actually frees the device extent
@@ -4419,6 +4456,18 @@ int btrfs_shrink_device(struct btrfs_device *device, u64 new_size)
chunk_offset = btrfs_dev_extent_chunk_offset(l, dev_extent);
btrfs_release_path(path);
+ /*
+ * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
+ * which could potentially end up with losing data's
+ * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
+ * advance.
+ */
+ ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
+ if (ret < 0) {
+ mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
+ goto done;
+ }
+
ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
if (ret && ret != -ENOSPC)
--
2.9.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device
2017-10-09 18:01 Liu Bo
@ 2017-10-10 6:57 ` Nikolay Borisov
2017-10-10 17:39 ` Liu Bo
0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread
From: Nikolay Borisov @ 2017-10-10 6:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Liu Bo, linux-btrfs
On 9.10.2017 21:01, Liu Bo wrote:
> We've avoided data losing raid profile when doing balance, but it
> turns out that deleting a device could also result in the same
> problem.
>
> This fixes the problem by creating an empty data chunk before
> relocating the data chunk.
>
> Metadata/System chunk are supposed to have non-zero bytes all the time
> so their raid profile is persistent.
This patch introduces new warning:
fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3523:29: note: ‘trans’ was declared here
struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
>
> Reported-by: James Alandt <James.Alandt@wdc.com>
> Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 4a72c45..3f48bcd 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> u64 logical, u64 *length,
> struct btrfs_bio **bbio_ret,
> int mirror_num, int need_raid_map);
> +static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + u64 chunk_offset);
Also there is no need to have this forward declaration, the function can
just as well be put right before __btrfs_balance. Let's try and keep
changes minimal.
>
> DEFINE_MUTEX(uuid_mutex);
> static LIST_HEAD(fs_uuids);
> @@ -3476,7 +3478,6 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> u32 count_meta = 0;
> u32 count_sys = 0;
> int chunk_reserved = 0;
> - u64 bytes_used = 0;
>
> /* step one make some room on all the devices */
> devices = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
> @@ -3635,28 +3636,22 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> goto loop;
> }
>
> - ASSERT(fs_info->data_sinfo);
> - spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> - bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
> - spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> -
> - if ((chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) &&
> - !chunk_reserved && !bytes_used) {
> - trans = btrfs_start_transaction(chunk_root, 0);
> - if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
> - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> - ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> - goto error;
> - }
> -
> - ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
> - BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
> - btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
> + if (!chunk_reserved) {
> + /*
> + * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
> + * which could potentially end up with losing data's
> + * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
> + * advance.
> + */
> + ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info,
> + found_key.offset);
> if (ret < 0) {
> mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> + ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> goto error;
> + } else if (ret == 1) {
> + chunk_reserved = 1;
> }
> - chunk_reserved = 1;
> }
>
> ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, found_key.offset);
> @@ -4327,6 +4322,48 @@ int btrfs_check_uuid_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> }
>
> /*
> + * return 1 : allocate a data chunk successfully,
> + * return <0: errors during allocating a data chunk,
> + * return 0 : no need to allocate a data chunk.
> + */
> +static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> + u64 chunk_offset)
> +{
> + struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache;
> + u64 bytes_used;
> + u64 chunk_type;
> +
> + cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> + ASSERT(cache);
> + chunk_type = cache->flags;
> + btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
> +
> + if (chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) {
> + spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> + bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
> + spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> +
> + if (!bytes_used) {
> + struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
> + int ret;
> +
> + trans = btrfs_join_transaction(fs_info->tree_root);
> + if (IS_ERR(trans))
> + return PTR_ERR(trans);
> +
> + ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
> + BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
> + btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
> + if (ret < 0)
> + return ret;
> +
> + return 1;
> + }
> + }
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +/*
> * shrinking a device means finding all of the device extents past
> * the new size, and then following the back refs to the chunks.
> * The chunk relocation code actually frees the device extent
> @@ -4419,6 +4456,18 @@ int btrfs_shrink_device(struct btrfs_device *device, u64 new_size)
> chunk_offset = btrfs_dev_extent_chunk_offset(l, dev_extent);
> btrfs_release_path(path);
>
> + /*
> + * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
> + * which could potentially end up with losing data's
> + * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
> + * advance.
> + */
> + ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> + goto done;
> + }
> +
> ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> if (ret && ret != -ENOSPC)
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device
2017-10-10 6:57 ` Nikolay Borisov
@ 2017-10-10 17:39 ` Liu Bo
0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread
From: Liu Bo @ 2017-10-10 17:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Nikolay Borisov; +Cc: linux-btrfs
On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 09:57:46AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>
>
> On 9.10.2017 21:01, Liu Bo wrote:
> > We've avoided data losing raid profile when doing balance, but it
> > turns out that deleting a device could also result in the same
> > problem.
> >
> > This fixes the problem by creating an empty data chunk before
> > relocating the data chunk.
> >
> > Metadata/System chunk are supposed to have non-zero bytes all the time
> > so their raid profile is persistent.
>
> This patch introduces new warning:
>
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3523:29: note: ‘trans’ was declared here
> struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
>
Not sure how I missed this, thanks for pointing it out.
>
> >
> > Reported-by: James Alandt <James.Alandt@wdc.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com>
> > ---
> > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 87 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------
> > 1 file changed, 68 insertions(+), 19 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > index 4a72c45..3f48bcd 100644
> > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> > @@ -144,6 +144,8 @@ static int __btrfs_map_block(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> > u64 logical, u64 *length,
> > struct btrfs_bio **bbio_ret,
> > int mirror_num, int need_raid_map);
> > +static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> > + u64 chunk_offset);
>
> Also there is no need to have this forward declaration, the function can
> just as well be put right before __btrfs_balance. Let's try and keep
> changes minimal.
>
OK.
> >
> > DEFINE_MUTEX(uuid_mutex);
> > static LIST_HEAD(fs_uuids);
> > @@ -3476,7 +3478,6 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > u32 count_meta = 0;
> > u32 count_sys = 0;
> > int chunk_reserved = 0;
> > - u64 bytes_used = 0;
> >
> > /* step one make some room on all the devices */
> > devices = &fs_info->fs_devices->devices;
> > @@ -3635,28 +3636,22 @@ static int __btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > goto loop;
> > }
> >
> > - ASSERT(fs_info->data_sinfo);
> > - spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> > - bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
> > - spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> > -
> > - if ((chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) &&
> > - !chunk_reserved && !bytes_used) {
> > - trans = btrfs_start_transaction(chunk_root, 0);
> > - if (IS_ERR(trans)) {
> > - mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> > - ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
> > - goto error;
> > - }
> > -
> > - ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
> > - BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
> > - btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
> > + if (!chunk_reserved) {
> > + /*
> > + * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
> > + * which could potentially end up with losing data's
> > + * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
> > + * advance.
> > + */
> > + ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info,
> > + found_key.offset);
> > if (ret < 0) {
> > mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> > + ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
I'll remove this ret = PTR_ERR(trans);
-liubo
> > goto error;
> > + } else if (ret == 1) {
> > + chunk_reserved = 1;
> > }
> > - chunk_reserved = 1;
> > }
> >
> > ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, found_key.offset);
> > @@ -4327,6 +4322,48 @@ int btrfs_check_uuid_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > + * return 1 : allocate a data chunk successfully,
> > + * return <0: errors during allocating a data chunk,
> > + * return 0 : no need to allocate a data chunk.
> > + */
> > +static int btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> > + u64 chunk_offset)
> > +{
> > + struct btrfs_block_group_cache *cache;
> > + u64 bytes_used;
> > + u64 chunk_type;
> > +
> > + cache = btrfs_lookup_block_group(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> > + ASSERT(cache);
> > + chunk_type = cache->flags;
> > + btrfs_put_block_group(cache);
> > +
> > + if (chunk_type & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA) {
> > + spin_lock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> > + bytes_used = fs_info->data_sinfo->bytes_used;
> > + spin_unlock(&fs_info->data_sinfo->lock);
> > +
> > + if (!bytes_used) {
> > + struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans;
> > + int ret;
> > +
> > + trans = btrfs_join_transaction(fs_info->tree_root);
> > + if (IS_ERR(trans))
> > + return PTR_ERR(trans);
> > +
> > + ret = btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(trans, fs_info,
> > + BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_DATA);
> > + btrfs_end_transaction(trans);
> > + if (ret < 0)
> > + return ret;
> > +
> > + return 1;
> > + }
> > + }
> > + return 0;
> > +}
> > +
> > +/*
> > * shrinking a device means finding all of the device extents past
> > * the new size, and then following the back refs to the chunks.
> > * The chunk relocation code actually frees the device extent
> > @@ -4419,6 +4456,18 @@ int btrfs_shrink_device(struct btrfs_device *device, u64 new_size)
> > chunk_offset = btrfs_dev_extent_chunk_offset(l, dev_extent);
> > btrfs_release_path(path);
> >
> > + /*
> > + * We may be relocating the only data chunk we have,
> > + * which could potentially end up with losing data's
> > + * raid profile, so lets allocate an empty one in
> > + * advance.
> > + */
> > + ret = btrfs_may_alloc_data_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> > + if (ret < 0) {
> > + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> > + goto done;
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = btrfs_relocate_chunk(fs_info, chunk_offset);
> > mutex_unlock(&fs_info->delete_unused_bgs_mutex);
> > if (ret && ret != -ENOSPC)
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2017-10-10 17:43 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2017-10-09 17:38 [PATCH] Btrfs: avoid losing data raid profile when deleting a device Liu Bo
2017-10-09 18:02 ` Liu Bo
2017-10-09 18:01 Liu Bo
2017-10-10 6:57 ` Nikolay Borisov
2017-10-10 17:39 ` Liu Bo
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.