From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E678C2D0C0 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1902320748 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 22:28:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726640AbfL2W2G (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:28:06 -0500 Received: from mail-ot1-f67.google.com ([209.85.210.67]:45720 "EHLO mail-ot1-f67.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726416AbfL2W2F (ORCPT ); Sun, 29 Dec 2019 17:28:05 -0500 Received: by mail-ot1-f67.google.com with SMTP id 59so43977843otp.12 for ; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:28:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=1/egouknvO4uhlLVwKaiO63786Ude2oMponSS3srR9I=; b=iJ5ux7yYcHscjvTEa63x2h225MPEC9kxLN4ZW0OLm0bVxOXP9uJw7m33X3zFOL770o ZH6nSJq/wuzQDxtGnkugfn1mqvGqiUNQAkmtVlOKu4uQdDWyb7R4kpLpMgnyHFr6CQ5P PsaXFFTd3E8zyCDMyvHyIHKozIsdzCHZUCb6CkhRdaUYDMxpihtKJSLwOsRKy0q3Sx9r QQhNNzZIWl6oLYXn87T/ayZFLt/Njw4A9fZL5kx+dJ8aYL8L98mRiPn861d7oTqtKu0j DYLwi9HxW+QCBeJwIcYqoA9sm3UMv8DtP/BJAfaurh+9BADpxhSrgoELIBZW0a0GzlFd megw== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAUSEJyeWFUifu5k5Gg7ktrrxiydDT6B8B7wVj2q0N6mhDogViBc M8ErzwregPhe82m6imNnYIn7AOP8Ah+y0LB2VtQtKW2sL10= X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqzVbPzvsSAVjCWP1Qc4T+CzReSWUzFyQ8CNGUhTacU6CmM6C+B1Py/9TNyqisxo8CaFEuzIVwxAZxyCBzO1vew= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6830:1cd3:: with SMTP id p19mr66876839otg.118.1577658484941; Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:28:04 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: In-Reply-To: From: Patrick Erley Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2019 14:27:53 -0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: read time tree block corruption detected To: Chris Murphy Cc: Btrfs BTRFS Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Should I --force it while mounted, or run the checks from RO mount status? On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 2:07 PM Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 29, 2019 at 1:44 PM Patrick Erley wrote: > > > > On a system where I've been tinkering with linux-next for years, my / > > has got some errors. When migrating from 5.1 to 5.2, I saw these > > errors, but just ignored them and went back to 5.1, and continued my > > tinkering. Over the holidays, I decided to try to upgrade the kernel, > > saw the errors again, and decided to look into them, finding the > > tree-checker page on the kernel docs, and am writing this e-mail. > > > > My / does not contain anything sensitive or important, as /home and > > /usr/src are both subvolumes on a separate larger drive. > > > > btrfs fi show: > > Label: none uuid: 815266d6-a8b9-4f63-a593-02fde178263f > > Total devices 2 FS bytes used 93.81GiB > > devid 1 size 115.12GiB used 115.11GiB path /dev/nvme0n1p2 > > devid 3 size 115.12GiB used 115.11GiB path /dev/sda3 > > > > Label: none uuid: 4bd97711-b63c-40cb-bfa5-aa9c2868cf98 > > Total devices 1 FS bytes used 536.48GiB > > devid 1 size 834.63GiB used 833.59GiB path /dev/sda5 > > > > Booting a more recent kernel, I get spammed with: > > [ 8.243899] BTRFS critical (device nvme0n1p2): corrupt leaf: root=5 > > block=303629811712 slot=30 ino=5380870, invalid inode generation: has > > 13221446351398931016 expect [0, 2997884] > > [ 8.243902] BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): block=303629811712 read > > time tree block corruption detected > > > > There are 6 corrupted inodes: > > cat dmesg.foo | grep "BTRFS critical" | sed -re > > 's:.*block=([0-9]*).*ino=([0-9]+).*:\1 \2:' | sort | uniq > > 303629811712 5380870 > > 303712501760 3277548 > > 303861395456 5909140 > > 304079065088 2228479 > > 304573444096 3539224 > > 305039556608 1442149 > > > > and they all have the same value for the inode generation. Before I > > reboot into a livecd and btrfs check --repair, is there anything > > interesting that a snapshot of the state would show? I have 800gb > > unpartitioned on the nvme, so backing up before is already in the > > plans, and I could just as easily grab an image of the partitions > > while I'm at it. > > I'm not certain whether btrfs check can fix these kinds of errors yet. > Can you use btrfs-progs v5.4 and just do a 'btrfs check' and also > again with 'btrfs check --mode=lowmem' ? I'm curious if either mode > sees the same problem the kernel tree checker sees. > > -- > Chris Murphy