On 12/18/18 2:37 下午, Junhui Tang wrote:
> From 8ca52771f1d3b83ff55dc80ba633901a081963bf Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tang Junhui <tang.junhui.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
> Date: Tue, 18 Dec 2018 10:38:26 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] bcache: treat stale && dirty keys as bad keys
>
> Stale && dirty keys can be produced in the follow way:
> After writeback in write_dirty_finish(), dirty keys k1 will
> replace by clean keys k2
> ==>ret = bch_btree_insert(dc->disk.c, &keys, NULL, &w->key);
> ==>btree_insert_fn(struct btree_op *b_op, struct btree *b)
> ==>static int bch_btree_insert_node(struct btree *b,
> struct btree_op *op,
> struct keylist *insert_keys,
> atomic_t *journal_ref,
> Then two steps:
> A) update k1 to k2 in btree node memory;
> bch_btree_insert_keys(b, op, insert_keys, replace_key)
> B) Write the bset(contains k2) to cache disk by a 30s delay work
> bch_btree_leaf_dirty(b, journal_ref).
> But before the 30s delay work write the bset to cache device,
> these things happend:
> A) GC works, and reclaim the bucket k2 point to;
> B) Allocator works, and invalidate the bucket k2 point to,
> and increase the gen of the bucket, and place it into free_inc
> fifo;
> C) Until now, the 30s delay work still does not finish work,
> so in the disk, the key still is k1, it is dirty and stale
> (its gen is smaller than the gen of the bucket). and then the
> machine power off suddenly happens;
> D) When the machine power on again, after the btree reconstruction,
> the stale dirty key appear.
>
> In bch_extent_bad(), when expensive_debug_checks is off, it would
> treat the dirty key as good even it is stale keys, and it would
> cause bellow probelms:
> A) In read_dirty() it would cause machine crash:
> BUG_ON(ptr_stale(dc->disk.c, &w->key, 0));
> B) It could be worse when reads hits stale dirty keys, it would
> read old incorrect data.
>
> This patch tolerate the existence of these stale && dirty keys,
> and treat them as bad key in bch_extent_bad().
>
> Signed-off-by: Tang Junhui <tang.junhui.linux@xxxxxxxxx>
Hi Junhui,
As a quick fix, this patch is good to me. Although there is indent issue
in this patch, I will fix it, don't worry.
Now I am also testing this patch on my hardware, if the addressed
problem does not reproduce next Monday, I will submit it to Jens in 4.21
wave.
Thanks.
Coly Li
> ---
> drivers/md/bcache/extents.c | 14 ++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/extents.c b/drivers/md/bcache/extents.c
> index 1d09674..f9eb03c 100644
> --- a/drivers/md/bcache/extents.c
> +++ b/drivers/md/bcache/extents.c
> @@ -535,6 +535,7 @@ static bool bch_extent_bad(struct btree_keys *bk,
> const struct bkey *k)
> {
> struct btree *b = container_of(bk, struct btree, keys);
> unsigned i, stale;
> + char buf[80];
>
> if (!KEY_PTRS(k) ||
> bch_extent_invalid(bk, k))
> @@ -544,19 +545,20 @@ static bool bch_extent_bad(struct btree_keys
> *bk, const struct bkey *k)
> if (!ptr_available(b->c, k, i))
> return true;
>
> - if (!expensive_debug_checks(b->c) && KEY_DIRTY(k))
> - return false;
> -
> for (i = 0; i < KEY_PTRS(k); i++) {
> stale = ptr_stale(b->c, k, i);
>
> + if (stale && KEY_DIRTY(k)) {
> + bch_extent_to_text(buf, sizeof(buf), k);
> + pr_info("stale dirty pointer, stale %u, key: %s",
> + stale,
> + buf);
> + }
> +
> btree_bug_on(stale > 96, b,
> "key too stale: %i, need_gc %u",
> stale, b->c->need_gc);
>
> - btree_bug_on(stale && KEY_DIRTY(k) && KEY_SIZE(k),
> - b, "stale dirty pointer");
> -
> if (stale)
> return true;
>
