I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT when there are no file extent holes in inode

I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT when there are no file extent holes in inode

[Przemysław Pawełczyk]

Hi!

I wanted to move and resize /home btrfs partition of my debian jessie
v8.1 (w/ btrfs-tools v3.17) in virtual machine using gparted 0.22.0
after booting from latest SysRescCD 4.5.3 (w/ btrfs-progs v3.19.1).
GParted does fs check before, to make sure that everything is fine,
but it wasn't. There were following errors from `btrfsck`:

checking fs roots
root 5 inode 1521611 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
start: 12288, len:4096
root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
start: 8192, len:4096
root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
start: 8192, len:8192
start: 20480, len:4096
root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
...

As you can see not every inode w/ file extent discount error flag has
file extent holes. I'm not sure of exact definition of this error
flag, so cannot tell myself how (ab?)normal it is. I was using this
partition almost daily for almost a year (back then it was debian
testing when installed) and beside occasional VirtualBox hangups
(during rsync from USB), I had no problems at all.

Qu Wenruo's discount file extent hole repairing function landed in
btrfs-progs v3.19, so I couldn't use debian's old btrfsck to improve
the situation, but sysresccd's one was recent enough (and I was
already booted into it), so I went with its `btrfsck --repair`. I got
many 'Fixed discount file extents for inode' messages, but next
`btrfsck` run still reported file extent discount errors. Looking
closely there was some improvement, because 2 inodes were no longer
reported (only one within visible part of the below log dump):

checking fs roots
root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
Found file extent holes:
...

I cloned btrfs-progs.git with latest stable v4.0.1, and executed
self-built `btrfsck --repair` from my debian, hoping that maybe there
were some improvements in that department. Sadly no, I got many 'Fixed
discount file extents for inode', but next `btrfsck` revealed same old
file extent discount errors. It looked like flag error is simply not
cleared, so I finally looked into the code.

When I found repair_inode_discount_extent() in cmds-check.c, I though
I've found the bug. I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT is cleared only within
while (node) loop, so if there are no file extents hole, it won't be
cleared. So I moved

    if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes))
        rec->errors &= ~I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT;

after the while loop. It must have helped clearing error flag during
`btrfsck --repair`, but rerunning `btrfsck` revealed that there are
still the same file extent discount errors, so apparently they were
reset in some other code path.

I added some debug printf to verify that RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes)
was not false (i.e. 0) and other one in maybe_free_inode_rec() after
conditions that lead to setting I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT error flag,
to see the values that met the conditions:

    if (rec->nlink > 0 && !no_holes
        && (   rec->extent_end < rec->isize
            || first_extent_gap(&rec->holes) < rec->isize
           )
       )

Rerunning `btrfsck` gave me this new info:

Checking filesystem on /dev/sda7
UUID: 8b889e4c-5dba-43e3-a116-e13874bfb311
!Set discount file extents for inode    1521634 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
        isize=1408       first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
!Set discount file extents for inode    1521645 (nlink=1
extent_end=20480      isize=47496
first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
!Set discount file extents for inode    1521647 (nlink=1
extent_end=36864      isize=37728
first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
!Set discount file extents for inode    1521648 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
        isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
!Set discount file extents for inode    1521649 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
        isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)

(This long number is ((u64)-1)

So extent_end < isize for these bloody inodes.

Now I have a few questions related to my problem.

1. What is the exact meaning of I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT nowadays
and are the conditions leading to setting this error flag proper
w.r.t. current btrfs state?

2. How these errors should be fixed?

I guess extending repair_inode_discount_extent() to fiddle with
extents properly, even if there are no file extent holes, will be
required, but I don't have enough btrfs knowledge to do it myself
right now (first time looking into btrfs-related code today). My
moving of error clearing out of the loop was bogus, because real issue
is apparently not fixed then (and clearing within loop can be bogus as
well for the same reason).

Regards.

PS Please CC me when replying, as I'm not on the list.

-- 
Przemysław Pawełczyk

Re: I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT when there are no file extent holes in inode

[Qu Wenruo]

Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote on 2015/06/14 21:38 +0200:
> Hi!
>
> I wanted to move and resize /home btrfs partition of my debian jessie
> v8.1 (w/ btrfs-tools v3.17) in virtual machine using gparted 0.22.0
> after booting from latest SysRescCD 4.5.3 (w/ btrfs-progs v3.19.1).
> GParted does fs check before, to make sure that everything is fine,
> but it wasn't. There were following errors from `btrfsck`:
>
> checking fs roots
> root 5 inode 1521611 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> start: 12288, len:4096
> root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> start: 8192, len:4096
> root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> start: 8192, len:8192
> start: 20480, len:4096
> root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> ...
>
> As you can see not every inode w/ file extent discount error flag has
> file extent holes. I'm not sure of exact definition of this error
> flag, so cannot tell myself how (ab?)normal it is. I was using this
> partition almost daily for almost a year (back then it was debian
> testing when installed) and beside occasional VirtualBox hangups
> (during rsync from USB), I had no problems at all.
>
> Qu Wenruo's discount file extent hole repairing function landed in
> btrfs-progs v3.19, so I couldn't use debian's old btrfsck to improve
> the situation, but sysresccd's one was recent enough (and I was
> already booted into it), so I went with its `btrfsck --repair`. I got
> many 'Fixed discount file extents for inode' messages, but next
> `btrfsck` run still reported file extent discount errors. Looking
> closely there was some improvement, because 2 inodes were no longer
> reported (only one within visible part of the below log dump):
>
> checking fs roots
> root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
> Found file extent holes:
> ...
>
> I cloned btrfs-progs.git with latest stable v4.0.1, and executed
> self-built `btrfsck --repair` from my debian, hoping that maybe there
> were some improvements in that department. Sadly no, I got many 'Fixed
> discount file extents for inode', but next `btrfsck` revealed same old
> file extent discount errors. It looked like flag error is simply not
> cleared, so I finally looked into the code.
>
> When I found repair_inode_discount_extent() in cmds-check.c, I though
> I've found the bug. I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT is cleared only within
> while (node) loop, so if there are no file extents hole, it won't be
> cleared. So I moved
>
>      if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes))
>          rec->errors &= ~I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT;

Thanks a lot for pointing out the problem.
I'll try to fix it soon.

Also, welcome aboard to btrfs development! :)

>
> after the while loop. It must have helped clearing error flag during
> `btrfsck --repair`, but rerunning `btrfsck` revealed that there are
> still the same file extent discount errors, so apparently they were
> reset in some other code path.
>
> I added some debug printf to verify that RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes)
> was not false (i.e. 0) and other one in maybe_free_inode_rec() after
> conditions that lead to setting I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT error flag,
> to see the values that met the conditions:
>
>      if (rec->nlink > 0 && !no_holes
>          && (   rec->extent_end < rec->isize
>              || first_extent_gap(&rec->holes) < rec->isize
>             )
>         )
>
> Rerunning `btrfsck` gave me this new info:
>
> Checking filesystem on /dev/sda7
> UUID: 8b889e4c-5dba-43e3-a116-e13874bfb311
> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521634 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>          isize=1408       first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521645 (nlink=1
> extent_end=20480      isize=47496
> first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521647 (nlink=1
> extent_end=36864      isize=37728
> first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521648 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>          isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521649 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>          isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>
> (This long number is ((u64)-1)
>
> So extent_end < isize for these bloody inodes.
My first thought on this is that my codes lacks check on inlined extent.
But a quick test shows that's not true.
For inlined extent, if inline file extent is found, its extent_end 
should be 4096.

So if that's OK for you, would you please upload a btrfs-image dump of 
your filesystem and send it to me for further debugging?

# btrfs-image <YOUR_BTRFS_DEV> <OUTPUT_FILE> -c9

WARNING: btrfs-image dump will only contains metadata, no data at all.
But even metadata, including the filename or dir name contains 
confidential or personal info, just ignore my request.

>
> Now I have a few questions related to my problem.
>
> 1. What is the exact meaning of I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT nowadays
> and are the conditions leading to setting this error flag proper
> w.r.t. current btrfs state?
This error flags means your file extents are not continuous.
Without enable the no-holes feature, btrfs won't allow non-continuous 
file extents.
Even you do things like:
dd if=/dev/zero of=/btrfs/mnt/test.file bs=1m count=1 seek=1.

The first 1M extent will be a "hole" extent, which takes no space on 
disk. And the second 1M extent will be a normal file extent, which takes 
1M on disk.


>
> 2. How these errors should be fixed?
>
> I guess extending repair_inode_discount_extent() to fiddle with
> extents properly, even if there are no file extent holes, will be
> required, but I don't have enough btrfs knowledge to do it myself
> right now (first time looking into btrfs-related code today). My
> moving of error clearing out of the loop was bogus, because real issue
> is apparently not fixed then (and clearing within loop can be bogus as
> well for the same reason).
For normal file extent case, repair_inode_discount_extent() will fix it 
by insert "hole" file extent fill the hole and make them continuous.
For inlined file extent case, it shouldn't happen as it will only be one 
extent...
And you hit the impossible case :(

Thanks,
Qu
>
> Regards.
>
> PS Please CC me when replying, as I'm not on the list.
>

Re: I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT when there are no file extent holes in inode

[Przemysław Pawełczyk]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote on 2015/06/14 21:38 +0200:

>> I wanted to move and resize /home btrfs partition of my debian jessie
>> v8.1 (w/ btrfs-tools v3.17) in virtual machine using gparted 0.22.0
>> after booting from latest SysRescCD 4.5.3 (w/ btrfs-progs v3.19.1).
>> GParted does fs check before, to make sure that everything is fine,
>> but it wasn't. There were following errors from `btrfsck`:
>>
>> checking fs roots
>> root 5 inode 1521611 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> start: 12288, len:4096
>> root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> start: 8192, len:4096
>> root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> start: 8192, len:8192
>> start: 20480, len:4096
>> root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> ...
>>
>> As you can see not every inode w/ file extent discount error flag has
>> file extent holes. I'm not sure of exact definition of this error
>> flag, so cannot tell myself how (ab?)normal it is. I was using this
>> partition almost daily for almost a year (back then it was debian
>> testing when installed) and beside occasional VirtualBox hangups
>> (during rsync from USB), I had no problems at all.
>>
>> Qu Wenruo's discount file extent hole repairing function landed in
>> btrfs-progs v3.19, so I couldn't use debian's old btrfsck to improve
>> the situation, but sysresccd's one was recent enough (and I was
>> already booted into it), so I went with its `btrfsck --repair`. I got
>> many 'Fixed discount file extents for inode' messages, but next
>> `btrfsck` run still reported file extent discount errors. Looking
>> closely there was some improvement, because 2 inodes were no longer
>> reported (only one within visible part of the below log dump):
>>
>> checking fs roots
>> root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
>> Found file extent holes:
>> ...
>>
>> I cloned btrfs-progs.git with latest stable v4.0.1, and executed
>> self-built `btrfsck --repair` from my debian, hoping that maybe there
>> were some improvements in that department. Sadly no, I got many 'Fixed
>> discount file extents for inode', but next `btrfsck` revealed same old
>> file extent discount errors. It looked like flag error is simply not
>> cleared, so I finally looked into the code.
>>
>> When I found repair_inode_discount_extent() in cmds-check.c, I though
>> I've found the bug. I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT is cleared only within
>> while (node) loop, so if there are no file extents hole, it won't be
>> cleared. So I moved
>>
>>      if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes))
>>          rec->errors &= ~I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT;
>
>
> Thanks a lot for pointing out the problem.
> I'll try to fix it soon.

I would send a patch separately if I was convinced that it fixes the
real problem, but as your read from the rest of the mail, I am not. It
may seem as slight optimization (checking things once instead of
repeatedly), but it also "masks" error flag (i.e. clears it) for cases
that are not really fixed in the function and only next btrfsck run
will reset this file extent discount error flag (in case of these
holeless inodes having extent_end < isize), so I think that it needs
to be postponed after repair_inode_discount_extent() will be smart
enough to thoroughly fix inode's extents deficiency.

> Also, welcome aboard to btrfs development! :)

Thank you, but I don't plan to truly dive into btrfs (at least yet). :)
I just hoped I could work my problem out myself and even if not, I
could at least provide more detailed report than "File extent discount
errors are not fixed by btrfsck."

>>
>> after the while loop. It must have helped clearing error flag during
>> `btrfsck --repair`, but rerunning `btrfsck` revealed that there are
>> still the same file extent discount errors, so apparently they were
>> reset in some other code path.
>>
>> I added some debug printf to verify that RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes)
>> was not false (i.e. 0) and other one in maybe_free_inode_rec() after
>> conditions that lead to setting I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT error flag,
>> to see the values that met the conditions:
>>
>>      if (rec->nlink > 0 && !no_holes
>>          && (   rec->extent_end < rec->isize
>>              || first_extent_gap(&rec->holes) < rec->isize
>>             )
>>         )
>>
>> Rerunning `btrfsck` gave me this new info:
>>
>> Checking filesystem on /dev/sda7
>> UUID: 8b889e4c-5dba-43e3-a116-e13874bfb311
>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521634 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>>          isize=1408       first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521645 (nlink=1
>> extent_end=20480      isize=47496
>> first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521647 (nlink=1
>> extent_end=36864      isize=37728
>> first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521648 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>>          isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521649 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>>          isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>>
>> (This long number is ((u64)-1)
>>
>> So extent_end < isize for these bloody inodes.
>
> My first thought on this is that my codes lacks check on inlined extent.
> But a quick test shows that's not true.
> For inlined extent, if inline file extent is found, its extent_end should be
> 4096.
>
> So if that's OK for you, would you please upload a btrfs-image dump of your
> filesystem and send it to me for further debugging?
>
> # btrfs-image <YOUR_BTRFS_DEV> <OUTPUT_FILE> -c9
>
> WARNING: btrfs-image dump will only contains metadata, no data at all.
> But even metadata, including the filename or dir name contains confidential
> or personal info, just ignore my request.

I'm sure such btrfs-image dump would be immensely helpful in debugging
this problem, but I cannot provide it. I may try to prepare stripped
version of my /home partition, i.e. the one I would be comfortable
with providing metadata dump from it, but there is a chance that
during stripping I'll remove problematic inodes. Is there any easy way
to find filenames behind particular inodes? That way I could
"preserve" them during stripping and simply rename if needed.

>>
>> Now I have a few questions related to my problem.
>>
>> 1. What is the exact meaning of I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT nowadays
>> and are the conditions leading to setting this error flag proper
>> w.r.t. current btrfs state?
>
> This error flags means your file extents are not continuous.
> Without enable the no-holes feature, btrfs won't allow non-continuous file
> extents.

Did you meant here "With no-hole feature enabled, btrfs won't allow
non-continuous file extents"?

If there are holes, we have non-continuous file extents, because in
place of missing file extents there are holes.
With no-hole mode present, all file extents are continuous. Did I get it right?

> Even you do things like:
> dd if=/dev/zero of=/btrfs/mnt/test.file bs=1m count=1 seek=1.
>
> The first 1M extent will be a "hole" extent, which takes no space on disk.
> And the second 1M extent will be a normal file extent, which takes 1M on
> disk.

Your above example assumes mode w/ holes? What it would be in no-hole mode?

>>
>> 2. How these errors should be fixed?
>>
>> I guess extending repair_inode_discount_extent() to fiddle with
>> extents properly, even if there are no file extent holes, will be
>> required, but I don't have enough btrfs knowledge to do it myself
>> right now (first time looking into btrfs-related code today). My
>> moving of error clearing out of the loop was bogus, because real issue
>> is apparently not fixed then (and clearing within loop can be bogus as
>> well for the same reason).
>
> For normal file extent case, repair_inode_discount_extent() will fix it by
> insert "hole" file extent fill the hole and make them continuous.
> For inlined file extent case, it shouldn't happen as it will only be one
> extent...
> And you hit the impossible case :(

I hate hitting "impossible cases"... :(

> Thanks,
> Qu

Regards.

-- 
Przemysław Pawełczyk

Re: I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT when there are no file extent holes in inode

[Qu Wenruo]

Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote on 2015/06/16 14:19 +0200:
> On Tue, Jun 16, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Przemysław Pawełczyk wrote on 2015/06/14 21:38 +0200:
>
>>> I wanted to move and resize /home btrfs partition of my debian jessie
>>> v8.1 (w/ btrfs-tools v3.17) in virtual machine using gparted 0.22.0
>>> after booting from latest SysRescCD 4.5.3 (w/ btrfs-progs v3.19.1).
>>> GParted does fs check before, to make sure that everything is fine,
>>> but it wasn't. There were following errors from `btrfsck`:
>>>
>>> checking fs roots
>>> root 5 inode 1521611 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> start: 12288, len:4096
>>> root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> start: 8192, len:4096
>>> root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> start: 8192, len:8192
>>> start: 20480, len:4096
>>> root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> As you can see not every inode w/ file extent discount error flag has
>>> file extent holes. I'm not sure of exact definition of this error
>>> flag, so cannot tell myself how (ab?)normal it is. I was using this
>>> partition almost daily for almost a year (back then it was debian
>>> testing when installed) and beside occasional VirtualBox hangups
>>> (during rsync from USB), I had no problems at all.
>>>
>>> Qu Wenruo's discount file extent hole repairing function landed in
>>> btrfs-progs v3.19, so I couldn't use debian's old btrfsck to improve
>>> the situation, but sysresccd's one was recent enough (and I was
>>> already booted into it), so I went with its `btrfsck --repair`. I got
>>> many 'Fixed discount file extents for inode' messages, but next
>>> `btrfsck` run still reported file extent discount errors. Looking
>>> closely there was some improvement, because 2 inodes were no longer
>>> reported (only one within visible part of the below log dump):
>>>
>>> checking fs roots
>>> root 5 inode 1521634 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> root 5 inode 1521645 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> root 5 inode 1521647 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> root 5 inode 1521648 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> root 5 inode 1521649 errors 100, file extent discount
>>> Found file extent holes:
>>> ...
>>>
>>> I cloned btrfs-progs.git with latest stable v4.0.1, and executed
>>> self-built `btrfsck --repair` from my debian, hoping that maybe there
>>> were some improvements in that department. Sadly no, I got many 'Fixed
>>> discount file extents for inode', but next `btrfsck` revealed same old
>>> file extent discount errors. It looked like flag error is simply not
>>> cleared, so I finally looked into the code.
>>>
>>> When I found repair_inode_discount_extent() in cmds-check.c, I though
>>> I've found the bug. I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT is cleared only within
>>> while (node) loop, so if there are no file extents hole, it won't be
>>> cleared. So I moved
>>>
>>>       if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes))
>>>           rec->errors &= ~I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT;
>>
>>
>> Thanks a lot for pointing out the problem.
>> I'll try to fix it soon.
>
> I would send a patch separately if I was convinced that it fixes the
> real problem, but as your read from the rest of the mail, I am not. It
> may seem as slight optimization (checking things once instead of
> repeatedly), but it also "masks" error flag (i.e. clears it) for cases
> that are not really fixed in the function and only next btrfsck run
> will reset this file extent discount error flag (in case of these
> holeless inodes having extent_end < isize), so I think that it needs
> to be postponed after repair_inode_discount_extent() will be smart
> enough to thoroughly fix inode's extents deficiency.
>
>> Also, welcome aboard to btrfs development! :)
>
> Thank you, but I don't plan to truly dive into btrfs (at least yet). :)
> I just hoped I could work my problem out myself and even if not, I
> could at least provide more detailed report than "File extent discount
> errors are not fixed by btrfsck."
>
>>>
>>> after the while loop. It must have helped clearing error flag during
>>> `btrfsck --repair`, but rerunning `btrfsck` revealed that there are
>>> still the same file extent discount errors, so apparently they were
>>> reset in some other code path.
>>>
>>> I added some debug printf to verify that RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&rec->holes)
>>> was not false (i.e. 0) and other one in maybe_free_inode_rec() after
>>> conditions that lead to setting I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT error flag,
>>> to see the values that met the conditions:
>>>
>>>       if (rec->nlink > 0 && !no_holes
>>>           && (   rec->extent_end < rec->isize
>>>               || first_extent_gap(&rec->holes) < rec->isize
>>>              )
>>>          )
>>>
>>> Rerunning `btrfsck` gave me this new info:
>>>
>>> Checking filesystem on /dev/sda7
>>> UUID: 8b889e4c-5dba-43e3-a116-e13874bfb311
>>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521634 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>>>           isize=1408       first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521645 (nlink=1
>>> extent_end=20480      isize=47496
>>> first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521647 (nlink=1
>>> extent_end=36864      isize=37728
>>> first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521648 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>>>           isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>>> !Set discount file extents for inode    1521649 (nlink=1 extent_end=0
>>>           isize=936        first_extent_gap(holes)=18446744073709551615)
>>>
>>> (This long number is ((u64)-1)
>>>
>>> So extent_end < isize for these bloody inodes.
>>
>> My first thought on this is that my codes lacks check on inlined extent.
>> But a quick test shows that's not true.
>> For inlined extent, if inline file extent is found, its extent_end should be
>> 4096.
>>
>> So if that's OK for you, would you please upload a btrfs-image dump of your
>> filesystem and send it to me for further debugging?
>>
>> # btrfs-image <YOUR_BTRFS_DEV> <OUTPUT_FILE> -c9
>>
>> WARNING: btrfs-image dump will only contains metadata, no data at all.
>> But even metadata, including the filename or dir name contains confidential
>> or personal info, just ignore my request.
>
> I'm sure such btrfs-image dump would be immensely helpful in debugging
> this problem, but I cannot provide it. I may try to prepare stripped
> version of my /home partition, i.e. the one I would be comfortable
> with providing metadata dump from it, but there is a chance that
> during stripping I'll remove problematic inodes. Is there any easy way
> to find filenames behind particular inodes? That way I could
> "preserve" them during stripping and simply rename if needed.

Understand your security concern.
Also, as you considered, deleting file can cause the error disappear,
which will makes debugging harder.

The alternative method to provide needed info, is to use
btrfs-debug-tree, and manually extract the needed info.

I'll give enough info for you to extract the needed info from your 
debug-tree output in later comments.
(Hey, understanding the output of btrfs-debug-tree is the first step to
btrfs development :) )

[[Extract info from the btrfs-debug-tree output]]
Just take the inode number 1521634 as the example, as in your prvious 
debug output, it's one of the inode has the problem.

# btrfs-debug-tree -t <SUBVOL_ID> <YOUR_DEVICE>

And search for contents with the following pattern:

[Pattern A, file extents]
item X key (1521634 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff XXXX itemsize XXX
	inline extent data size YYY ram YYY compress Y
OR
item X key (1521634 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff XXXX itemsize XXX
	extent data disk byte YYYYY nr YYYY
	extent data offset YYYYY nr YYYYY ram YYYYY
	extent compression Y

[Pattern B, inode info]
item X key (1521634 INODE_ITEM 0) itemoff XXXX itemsize XXX
	inode generation YY transid YY size YYYYY block group 0 mode YYYYY 
links Y uid Y gid Y rdev Y flags 0xYYYY

item XXX key (1521634 INODE_REF XXX) itemoff XXXX itemsize XXX
	inode ref index Y namelen YYYY name: YYYYY

Where <SUBVOL_ID> is the id of subvolume which contains the inode 1521634.

If multiple snapshots contains the inode, it's highly recommended to 
find all patterns in subvolumes. As I'm afraid snapshot maybe related to 
such bug.

If you don't use snapshot/subvolume, the default top-level subvolume id 
is 5.
Or you can use 'btrfs sub list' command to get the subvolume id.


You should take care of the "name" field in pattern B, which indicates 
the filename of the inode. Feel free to change it.

It's better to copy the exact whole patterns except the "name" field for 
further debugging.
>
>>>
>>> Now I have a few questions related to my problem.
>>>
>>> 1. What is the exact meaning of I_ERR_FILE_EXTENT_DISCOUNT nowadays
>>> and are the conditions leading to setting this error flag proper
>>> w.r.t. current btrfs state?
>>
>> This error flags means your file extents are not continuous.
>> Without enable the no-holes feature, btrfs won't allow non-continuous file
>> extents.
>
> Did you meant here "With no-hole feature enabled, btrfs won't allow
> non-continuous file extents"?

No. I mean
'Btrfs doesn't allow non-continuous file extent, *unless* you enabled 
"no-holes" feature.'

>
> If there are holes, we have non-continuous file extents, because in
> place of missing file extents there are holes.
> With no-hole mode present, all file extents are continuous. Did I get it right?

When I mentioned 'hole file extent', it means a special file extent.
I'll explain with the debug-tree output to give a clear explain:
------
         item 17 key (259 INODE_REF 256) itemoff 14154 itemsize 19
                 inode ref index 4 namelen 9 name: with_seek
         item 18 key (259 EXTENT_DATA 0) itemoff 14101 itemsize 53
                 extent data disk byte 0 nr 0 <<<
                 extent data offset 0 nr 1048576 ram 1048576
                 extent compression 0
         item 19 key (259 EXTENT_DATA 1048576) itemoff 14048 itemsize 53
                 extent data disk byte 13123584 nr 1048576 <<<
                 extent data offset 0 nr 1048576 ram 1048576
                 extent compression 0
------
That's part of the debug output for file created by "dd if=/dev/zero 
bs=1M count=1 seek=1 of=with_seek" command.

See the "item 18 key (259 EXTENT_DATA 0)" one.
259 is the inode number, EXTENT_DATA means this item records info of a 
file extent, and "0" means the file extent is at offset 0 of the file.

"extent data disk byte 0 nr 0" means the file extent takes no space on 
disk, and is a "hole file extent".

And "extent data offset 0 nr 1048576 ram 1048567", "offset 0" means no 
offset when reading data from the disk(a little complicated with CoW).
"nr 1048576" means it takes such bytes on disk. For "hole file extent", 
it doesn't have the real meaning.
"ram 1048576" means it takes such bytes in memory.
"nr" and "ram" are always the same for uncompressed file extents.

And for it 19, "disk byte" is non-zero, which means it's really on disk 
and takes space.
This file extent is a real file extent, takes space on disk.


So normally btrfs only allows such case for a file:

File A's file extents:

|<-Hole->|<-Real->|<-Real->|<-Hole->|<-Real->| (*1)

And it it turns like below without the no-hole feature,
          |<-Real->|<-Real->|        |<-Real->| (*2)
Then btrfsck will give the file extent discount error.

*1: With debug tree output, it will be like
item 1 (123 EXTENT_DATA 0)
	extent data disk byte 0 nr 0
item 2 (123 EXTENT_DATA 4096)
	extent data disk byte XXXX nr XXXX
item 3 (123 EXTENT_DATA 8192)
	extent data disk byte XXXX nr XXXX
item 4 (123 EXTENT_DATA 12288)
	extent data disk byte 0 nr 0
item 4 (123 EXTENT_DATA 16384)
	extent data disk byte XXXX nr XXXX

*2: With debug tree output, it will be like
item 2 (123 EXTENT_DATA 4096)
	extent data disk byte XXXX nr XXXX
item 3 (123 EXTENT_DATA 8192)
	extent data disk byte XXXX nr XXXX
item 4 (123 EXTENT_DATA 16384)
	extent data disk byte XXXX nr XXXX

>
>> Even you do things like:
>> dd if=/dev/zero of=/btrfs/mnt/test.file bs=1m count=1 seek=1.
>>
>> The first 1M extent will be a "hole" extent, which takes no space on disk.
>> And the second 1M extent will be a normal file extent, which takes 1M on
>> disk.
>
> Your above example assumes mode w/ holes? What it would be in no-hole mode?
See the above ASCII picture and debug tree output.

If enabled no-hole feature, there will no hole file extent. Only real
file extent exists.

>
>>>
>>> 2. How these errors should be fixed?
>>>
>>> I guess extending repair_inode_discount_extent() to fiddle with
>>> extents properly, even if there are no file extent holes, will be
>>> required, but I don't have enough btrfs knowledge to do it myself
>>> right now (first time looking into btrfs-related code today). My
>>> moving of error clearing out of the loop was bogus, because real issue
>>> is apparently not fixed then (and clearing within loop can be bogus as
>>> well for the same reason).
>>
>> For normal file extent case, repair_inode_discount_extent() will fix it by
>> insert "hole" file extent fill the hole and make them continuous.
>> For inlined file extent case, it shouldn't happen as it will only be one
>> extent...
>> And you hit the impossible case :(
>
> I hate hitting "impossible cases"... :(
So I'm here to debugging the problem :)

Thanks,
Qu
>
>> Thanks,
>> Qu
>
> Regards.
>