Re: Possible io_uring related race leads to btrfs data csum mismatch

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]


On 8/16/23 7:19 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> On 2023/8/17 09:12, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> On 8/16/23 7:05 PM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>>> On 2023/8/17 06:28, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>>>> 2) What's the .config you are using?
>>>>> Pretty common config, no heavy debug options (KASAN etc).
>>>> Please just send the .config, I'd rather not have to guess. Things like
>>>> preempt etc may make a difference in reproducing this.
>>> Sure, please see the attached config.gz
>> Thanks
>>>> And just to be sure, this is not mixing dio and buffered, right?
>>> I'd say it's mixing, there are dwrite() and writev() for the same file,
>>> but at least not overlapping using this particular seed, nor they are
>>> concurrent (all inside the same process sequentially).
>>> But considering if only uring_write is disabled, then no more reproduce,
>>> thus there must be some untested btrfs path triggered by uring_write.
>> That would be one conclusion, another would be that timing is just
>> different and that triggers and issue. Or it could of course be a bug in
>> io_uring, perhaps a short write that gets retried or something like
>> that. I've run the tests for hours here and don't hit anything, I've
>> pulled in the for-next branch for btrfs and see if that'll make a
>> difference. I'll check your .config too.
> Just to mention, the problem itself was pretty hard to hit before if
> using any debug kernel configs.

The kernels I'm testing with don't have any debug options enabled,
outside of the basic cheap stuff. I do notice you have all btrfs debug
stuff enabled, I'll try and do that too.

> Not sure why but later I switched both my CPUs (from a desktop i7-13700K
> but with limited 160W power, to a laptop 7940HS), dropping all heavy
> debug kernel configs, then it's 100% reproducible here.
> So I guess a faster CPU is also one factor?

I've run this on kvm on an apple m1 max, no luck there. Ran it on a
7950X, no luck there. Fiddling config options on the 7950 and booting up
the 7763 two socket box. Both that and the 7950 are using gen4 optane,
should be plenty beefy. But if it's timing related, well...

>> Might not be a bad idea to have the writes contain known data, and when
>> you hit the failure to verify the csum, dump the data where the csum
>> says it's wrong and figure out at what offset, what content, etc it is?
>> If that can get correlated to the log of what happened, that might shed
>> some light on this.
> Thanks for the advice, would definitely try this method, would keep you
> updated when I found something valuable.

If I can't reproduce this, then this seems like the best way forward

Jens Axboe

[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux