archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thorsten Leemhuis <>
To: Zygo Blaxell <>,
	Josef Bacik <>
Cc: Nikolay Borisov <>,
	linux-btrfs <>
Subject: Re: bisected: btrfs dedupe regression in v5.11-rc1
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2022 15:04:19 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

Hi, this is your Linux kernel regression tracker speaking.

On 07.01.22 19:31, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 17, 2021 at 03:50:44PM -0500, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 05:07:50PM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
>>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2021 at 11:29:06PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>>>> On 16.12.21 г. 7:33, Zygo Blaxell wrote:
>>>>> Again we have "3 locks held" but no list of locks.  WTF is 10883 doing?
>>>>> Well, first of all it's using 100% CPU in the kernel.  Some samples of
>>>>> kernel stacks:
>>>>> 	# cat /proc/*/task/10883/stack
>>>>> 	[<0>] down_read_nested+0x32/0x140
>>>>> 	[<0>] __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x2d/0x110
>>>>> 	[<0>] btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x10/0x20
>>>>> 	[<0>] btrfs_search_old_slot+0x627/0x8a0
>>>>> 	[<0>] btrfs_next_old_leaf+0xcb/0x340
>>>>> 	[<0>] find_parent_nodes+0xcd7/0x1c40
>>>>> 	[<0>] btrfs_find_all_leafs+0x63/0xb0
>>>>> 	[<0>] iterate_extent_inodes+0xc8/0x270
>>>>> 	[<0>] iterate_inodes_from_logical+0x9f/0xe0
>>>> That's the real culprit, in this case we are not searching the commit
>>>> root hence we've attached to the transaction. So we are doing backref
>>>> resolution which either:
>>>> a) Hits some pathological case and loops for very long time, backref
>>>> resolution is known to take a lot of time.
>>>> b) We hit a bug in backref resolution and loop forever which again
>>>> results in the transaction being kept open.
>>>> Now I wonder why you were able to bisect this to the seemingly unrelated
>>>> commit in the vfs code.
>>>> Josef any ideas how to proceed further to debug why backref resolution
>>>> takes a long time and if it's just an infinite loop?
>>> It's probably an infinite loop, I'd just start with something like this
>>> bpftrace -e 'tracepoint:btrfs:btrfs_prelim_ref_insert { printf("bytenr is %llu", args->bytenr); }'
>>> and see if it's spitting out the same shit over and over again.  If it is can I
>>> get a btrfs inspect-internal dump-tree -e on the device along with the bytenr
>>> it's hung up on so I can figure out wtf it's tripping over?
>> That bpftrace command doesn't output anything after the hang.  Before the
>> hang, it's thousands and thousands of values changing as bees moves around
>> the filesystem.
> I left my VM running tests for a few weeks and got some more information.
> Or at least more data, I'm not feeling particularly informed by it.  :-P
> 1.  It's not a regression.  5.10 has the same symptoms, but about 100x
> less often (once a week under these test conditions, compared to once
> every 90 minutes or so on 5.11-rc1).

Well, I'd still call it a regression, as it's now happening way more
often and thus will likely hit more users. It's thus a bit like a
problem that leads to higher energy consumption: things still work, but
worse than before -- nevertheless it's considered a regression. Anway:

What's the status here? Are you still investigating the issue? Are any
developers looking out for the root cause?

Ciao, Thorsten

P.S.: As a Linux kernel regression tracker I'm getting a lot of reports
on my table. I can only look briefly into most of them. Unfortunately
therefore I sometimes will get things wrong or miss something important.
I hope that's not the case here; if you think it is, don't hesitate to
tell me about it in a public reply, that's in everyone's interest.

BTW, I have no personal interest in this issue, which is tracked using
regzbot, my Linux kernel regression tracking bot
( I'm only posting
this mail to get things rolling again and hence don't need to be CC on
all further activities wrt to this regression.

#regzbot poke

> 2.  Bisection doesn't work, because there are patches that are repeatably
> good and bad mixed together, so the bisect algorithm (even with stochastic
> enhancement) repeatably picks the wrong commits and converges with
> high confidence on nonsense.  Instead of bisecting, I picked commits
> semi-randomly from 5.11-rc1's patch set, and got these results:
>    124  3a160a933111 btrfs: drop never met disk total bytes check in verify_one_dev_extent
> 	1x hang, 2x slower
>    125  bacce86ae8a7 btrfs: drop unused argument step from btrfs_free_extra_devids
> 	1x pass (fast)
>    126  2766ff61762c btrfs: update the number of bytes used by an inode atomically
> 	1x hang (<20 minutes)
>    127  7f458a3873ae btrfs: fix race when defragmenting leads to unnecessary IO
> 	1x hang, runs 3x slower
>    128  5893dfb98f25 btrfs: refactor btrfs_drop_extents() to make it easier to extend
> 	2x hang (<20 minutes)
>    129  e114c545bb69 btrfs: set the lockdep class for extent buffers on creation
> 	2x pass (but runs 2x slower, both times)
>    130  3fbaf25817f7 btrfs: pass the owner_root and level to alloc_extent_buffer
> 	1x pass
>    131  5d81230baa90 btrfs: pass the root owner and level around for readahead
> 	1x pass
>    132  1b7ec85ef490 btrfs: pass root owner to read_tree_block
> 	1x pass
>    133  182c79fcb857 btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in btrfs_qgroup_trace_subtree
>    134  3acfbd6a990c btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in qgroup_trace_new_subtree_blocks
> 	1x hang
>    135  6b2cb7cb959a btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in qgroup_trace_extent_swap
>    136  c990ada2a0bb btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in walk_down_tree
> 	1x hang
>    137  6b3426be27de btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in replace_path
> 	1x hang, 1x pass
>    138  c975253682e0 btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in do_relocation
> 	1x hang
>    139  8ef385bbf099 btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in walk_down_reloc_tree
> 	1x hang, 1x pass
>    140  206983b72a36 btrfs: use btrfs_read_node_slot in btrfs_realloc_node
> 	1x pass
>    141  bfb484d922a3 btrfs: cleanup extent buffer readahead
> 	1x pass
>    142  416e3445ef80 btrfs: remove lockdep classes for the fs tree
>    143  3e48d8d2540d btrfs: discard: reschedule work after sysfs param update
>    144  df903e5d294f btrfs: don't miss async discards after scheduled work override
>    145  6e88f116bd4c btrfs: discard: store async discard delay as ns not as jiffies
> 	2x hang
>    146  e50404a8a699 btrfs: discard: speed up async discard up to iops_limit
>    [snip]
>    155  0d01e247a06b btrfs: assert page mapping lock in attach_extent_buffer_page
> 	1x hang, 1x pass
>    156  bbb86a371791 btrfs: protect fs_info->caching_block_groups by block_group_cache_lock
> 	1x hang
>    157  e747853cae3a btrfs: load free space cache asynchronously
> 	1x pass
>    158  4d7240f0abda btrfs: load the free space cache inode extents from commit root
> 	1x hang
>    159  cd79909bc7cd btrfs: load free space cache into a temporary ctl
> 	2x pass
>    160  66b53bae46c8 btrfs: cleanup btrfs_discard_update_discardable usage
> 	2x hang, 1x pass
>    161  2ca08c56e813 btrfs: explicitly protect ->last_byte_to_unpin in unpin_extent_range
> 	2x pass
>    162  27d56e62e474 btrfs: update last_byte_to_unpin in switch_commit_roots
> 	2x pass
>    163  9076dbd5ee83 btrfs: do not shorten unpin len for caching block groups
>    164  dc5161648693 btrfs: reorder extent buffer members for better packing
> 	2x pass
>    165  b9729ce014f6 btrfs: locking: rip out path->leave_spinning
>    166  ac5887c8e013 btrfs: locking: remove all the blocking helpers
>    167  2ae0c2d80d25 btrfs: scrub: remove local copy of csum_size from context
>    168  419b791ce760 btrfs: check integrity: remove local copy of csum_size
> 	1x hang, 1x pass
>    169  713cebfb9891 btrfs: remove unnecessary local variables for checksum size
>    170  223486c27b36 btrfs: switch cached fs_info::csum_size from u16 to u32
>    171  55fc29bed8dd btrfs: use cached value of fs_info::csum_size everywhere
>    172  fe5ecbe818de btrfs: precalculate checksums per leaf once
>    173  22b6331d9617 btrfs: store precalculated csum_size in fs_info
>    174  265fdfa6ce0a btrfs: replace s_blocksize_bits with fs_info::sectorsize_bits
>    175  098e63082b9b btrfs: replace div_u64 by shift in free_space_bitmap_size
> 	2x pass
>    176  ab108d992b12 btrfs: use precalculated sectorsize_bits from fs_info
>    [snip]
>    200  5e8b9ef30392 btrfs: move pos increment and pagecache extension to btrfs_buffered_write
> 	1x pass
>    201  4e4cabece9f9 btrfs: split btrfs_direct_IO to read and write
>    [snip]
>    215  d70bf7484f72 btrfs: unify the ro checking for mount options
> 	1x pass
>    216  a6889caf6ec6 btrfs: do not start readahead for csum tree when scrubbing non-data block groups
>    217  a57ad681f12e btrfs: assert we are holding the reada_lock when releasing a readahead zone
>    218  aa8c1a41a1e6 btrfs: set EXTENT_NORESERVE bits side btrfs_dirty_pages()
>    219  13f0dd8f7861 btrfs: use round_down while calculating start position in btrfs_dirty_pages()
>    220  949b32732eab btrfs: use iosize while reading compressed pages
>    221  eefa45f59379 btrfs: calculate num_pages, reserve_bytes once in btrfs_buffered_write
>    222  fb8a7e941b1b btrfs: calculate more accurate remaining time to sleep in transaction_kthread
> 	1x pass
> There is some repeatability in these results--some commits have a much
> lower failure rate than others--but I don't see a reason why the bad
> commits are bad or the good commits are good.  There are some commits with
> locking and concurrency implications, but they're as likely to produce
> good as bad results in test.  Sometimes there's a consistent change in
> test result after a commit that only rearranges function arguments on
> the stack.
> Maybe what we're looking at is a subtle race that is popping up due
> to unrelated changes in the kernel, and disappearing just as often,
> and 5.11-rc1 in particular did something innocent that aggravates
> it somehow, so all later kernels hit the problem more often than
> 5.10 did.
> 3.  Somewhere around "7f458a3873ae btrfs: fix race when defragmenting
> leads to unnecessary IO" bees starts running about 3x slower than on
> earlier kernels.  bees is a nightmare of nondeterministically racing
> worker threads, so I'm not sure how important this observation is,
> but it keeps showing up in the data.
> 4.  I had one machine on 5.10.84 (not a test VM) with a shell process
> that got stuck spinning 100% CPU in the kernel on sys_write.  bees was
> also running, but its threads were all stuck waiting for the shell to
> release the transaction.  Other crashes on 5.10.8x kernels look more
> like the one in this thread, with a logical_ino spinning.
>>> If it's not looping there, it may be looping higher up, but I don't see where it
>>> would be doing that.  Lets start here and work our way up if we need to.
>>> Thanks,

  reply	other threads:[~2022-01-20 14:04 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-12-10 18:34 bisected: btrfs dedupe regression in v5.11-rc1: 3078d85c9a10 vfs: verify source area in vfs_dedupe_file_range_one() Zygo Blaxell
2021-12-12 10:03 ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-12-13 13:28 ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-12-13 23:12   ` Zygo Blaxell
2021-12-14 11:11     ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-12-14 19:50       ` Zygo Blaxell
2021-12-14 22:25         ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-12-16  5:33           ` Zygo Blaxell
2021-12-16 21:29             ` Nikolay Borisov
2021-12-16 22:07               ` Josef Bacik
2021-12-17 20:50                 ` Zygo Blaxell
2022-01-07 18:31                   ` bisected: btrfs dedupe regression in v5.11-rc1 Zygo Blaxell
2022-01-20 14:04                     ` Thorsten Leemhuis [this message]
2022-01-21  0:27                       ` Zygo Blaxell
2022-02-09 12:22                         ` Libor Klepáč
2022-02-18 14:46                         ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-03-06 10:31                           ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2022-03-06 23:34                             ` Zygo Blaxell
2022-03-07  6:17                               ` Thorsten Leemhuis
2021-12-17  5:38               ` bisected: btrfs dedupe regression in v5.11-rc1: 3078d85c9a10 vfs: verify source area in vfs_dedupe_file_range_one() Zygo Blaxell
2022-06-13  8:38 ` Libor Klepáč
2022-06-21  5:08   ` Zygo Blaxell

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:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \ \

* 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).