From: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com>
To: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>,
linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, kernel-team@fb.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] btrfs: check rw_devices, not num_devices for restriping
Date: Sat, 11 Jan 2020 17:24:54 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <ad071df3-1ee1-9698-e6e1-38d04c2b4e66@gmx.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200110161128.21710-2-josef@toxicpanda.com>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2654 bytes --]
On 2020/1/11 上午12:11, Josef Bacik wrote:
> While running xfstests with compression on I noticed I was panicing on
> btrfs/154. I bisected this down to my inc_block_group_ro patches, which
> was strange.
>
> What was happening is with my patches we now use btrfs_can_overcommit()
> to see if we can flip a block group read only. Before this would fail
> because we weren't taking into account the usable un-allocated space for
> allocating chunks. With my patches we were allowed to do the balance,
> which is technically correct.
>
> However this test is testing restriping with a degraded mount, something
> that isn't working right because Anand's fix for the test was never
> actually merged.
>
> So now we're trying to allocate a chunk and cannot because we want to
> allocate a RAID1 chunk, but there's only 1 device that's available for
> usage. This results in an ENOSPC in one of the BUG_ON(ret) paths in
> relocation (and a tricky path that is going to take many more patches to
> fix.)
>
> But we shouldn't even be making it this far, we don't have enough
> devices to restripe. The problem is we're using btrfs_num_devices(),
> which for some reason includes missing devices. That's not actually
> what we want, we want the rw_devices.
>
> Fix this by getting the rw_devices. With this patch we're no longer
> panicing with my other patches applied, and we're in fact erroring out
> at the correct spot instead of at inc_block_group_ro. The fact that
> this was working before was just sheer dumb luck.
>
> Fixes: e4d8ec0f65b9 ("Btrfs: implement online profile changing")
> Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com>
> ---
> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 9 ++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 7483521a928b..a92059555754 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -3881,7 +3881,14 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> }
> }
>
> - num_devices = btrfs_num_devices(fs_info);
> + /*
> + * rw_devices can be messed with by rm_device and device replace, so
> + * take the chunk_mutex to make sure we have a relatively consistent
> + * view of the fs at this point.
> + */
> + mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
> + num_devices = fs_info->fs_devices->rw_devices;
> + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex);
chunk_mutex is the correct lock for rw_devices counter and alloc_list.
So,
Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
Thanks,
Qu
>
> /*
> * SINGLE profile on-disk has no profile bit, but in-memory we have a
>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 488 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-11 9:25 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-10 16:11 [PATCH 0/5][v3] clean up how we mark block groups read only Josef Bacik
2020-01-10 16:11 ` [PATCH 1/5] btrfs: check rw_devices, not num_devices for restriping Josef Bacik
2020-01-11 9:24 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2020-01-14 20:56 ` David Sterba
2020-01-14 21:07 ` Josef Bacik
2020-01-16 15:59 ` David Sterba
2020-01-16 16:25 ` Josef Bacik
2020-01-10 16:11 ` [PATCH 2/5] btrfs: don't pass system_chunk into can_overcommit Josef Bacik
2020-01-14 19:56 ` David Sterba
2020-01-10 16:11 ` [PATCH 3/5] btrfs: kill min_allocable_bytes in inc_block_group_ro Josef Bacik
2020-01-10 16:11 ` [PATCH 4/5] btrfs: fix force usage " Josef Bacik
2020-01-11 6:15 ` Qu Wenruo
2020-01-10 16:11 ` [PATCH 5/5] btrfs: use btrfs_can_overcommit " Josef Bacik
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=ad071df3-1ee1-9698-e6e1-38d04c2b4e66@gmx.com \
--to=quwenruo.btrfs@gmx.com \
--cc=josef@toxicpanda.com \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).