On 2015-10-21 09:19, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
Hmm, dm-devel@redhat.org seems to have bounced for me.  Any ideas why 
RedHat would be blocking inbound mail from Google's mail servers?
> On 2015-10-20 11:12, Austin S Hemmelgarn wrote:
>> I think I've stumbled upon a bug in DM-RAID.  The primary symptom is
>> that when
>> creating a new DM-RAID based device (using either LVM or dmsetup) in a
>> RAID1
>> configuration, it very quickly claims one by one that all of the disks
>> failed
>> except the first, and goes degraded.  When this happens on a given
>> system, the
>> disks always 'fail' in the reverse of the order of the mirror
>> numbers.  All of
>> the other RAID profiles work just fine.  Curiously, it also only seems to
>> happen for 'big' devices (I haven't been able to determine exactly
>> what the
>> minimum size is, but I see it 100% of the time with 32G devices, never
>> with 16G
>> ones, and only intermittently with 24G).
> OK, I've done some more experimentation, and have figured out that
> adjusting the sync region size from the default (and thus adjusting the
> bitmap size) can temporarily work around this.  If I adjust things so
> that the bitmap is less than 32 pages, then everything works fine, until
> I try to reboot, at which point the device either (in order of
> decreasing probability):
> 1. Fails just like I've outlined above.
> 2. Refuses to activate at all (if using LVM, you get some complaint
> about 'expected raid1 segment type, but got NULL' or 'reload ioctl on
> failed')
> 3. It works for a while, and then one of the first two things happens
> the next time I reboot.
>>
>> Here's what I got from dmesg when creating a 32G LVM volume that
>> exhibited
>> this issue:
>> [66318.401295] device-mapper: raid: Superblocks created for new array
>> [66318.450452] md/raid1:mdX: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
>> [66318.450467] Choosing daemon_sleep default (5 sec)
>> [66318.450482] created bitmap (32 pages) for device mdX
>> [66318.450495] attempt to access beyond end of device
>> [66318.450501] dm-91: rw=13329, want=0, limit=8192
>> [66318.450506] md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0
>> [66318.450513] md/raid1:mdX: Disk failure on dm-92, disabling device.
>>                 md/raid1:mdX: Operation continuing on 1 devices.
>> [66318.459815] attempt to access beyond end of device
>> [66318.459819] dm-89: rw=13329, want=0, limit=8192
>> [66318.459822] md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0
>> [66318.492852] attempt to access beyond end of device
>> [66318.492862] dm-89: rw=13329, want=0, limit=8192
>> [66318.492868] md: super_written gets error=-5, uptodate=0
>> [66318.627183] mdX: bitmap file is out of date, doing full recovery
>> [66318.714107] mdX: bitmap initialized from disk: read 3 pages, set
>> 65536 of 65536 bits
>> [66318.782045] RAID1 conf printout:
>> [66318.782054]  --- wd:1 rd:2
>> [66318.782061]  disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:dm-90
>> [66318.782068]  disk 1, wo:1, o:0, dev:dm-92
>> [66318.836598] RAID1 conf printout:
>> [66318.836607]  --- wd:1 rd:2
>> [66318.836614]  disk 0, wo:0, o:1, dev:dm-90
>>
>> And here's output for a 24G LVM volume that didn't display the issue.
>> [66343.407954] device-mapper: raid: Superblocks created for new array
>> [66343.479065] md/raid1:mdX: active with 2 out of 2 mirrors
>> [66343.479078] Choosing daemon_sleep default (5 sec)
>> [66343.479101] created bitmap (24 pages) for device mdX
>> [66343.629329] mdX: bitmap file is out of date, doing full recovery
>> [66343.677374] mdX: bitmap initialized from disk: read 2 pages, set
>> 49152 of 49152 bits
>>
>> I'm using a lightly patched version of 4.2.3
>> (the source can be found at https://github.com/ferroin/linux)
>> but none of the patches I'm using come anywhere near anything in the
>> block layer,
>> let alone the DM/MD code.
>>
>> I've attempted to bisect this, although it got kind of complicated.
>> So far I've
>> determined that the first commit that I see this issue on is d3b178a:
>> md: Skip cluster setup for dm-raid
>> Prior to that commit, I can't initialize any dm-raid devices due to
>> the bug it fixes.
>> I have not tested anything prior to d51e4fe (the merge commit that
>> pulled in the md-cluster code),
>> but I do distinctly remember that I did not see this issue in 3.19.
>>
>> I'll be happy to provide more info if needed.