when cache was introduced single exclusive spinlock protect
whole ext3_ext_get_blocks and there was no concurrency at all.
so I guess your theory is correct.
thanks, Alex
Theodore Tso wrote:
On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 12:00:15AM +0930, Kevin Shanahan wrote:
debugfs: stat <759>
hermes:~# debugfs /dev/dm-0
debugfs 1.41.3 (12-Oct-2008)
debugfs: stat <759>
Inode: 759 Type: regular Mode: 0660 Flags: 0x80000
Generation: 3979120103 Version: 0x00000000:00000001
User: 0 Group: 10140 Size: 14615630848
File ACL: 0 Directory ACL: 0
Links: 1 Blockcount: 28546168
Fragment: Address: 0 Number: 0 Size: 0
ctime: 0x4a0acdb5:2a88cbec -- Wed May 13 23:10:05 2009
atime: 0x4a0ac45b:10899618 -- Wed May 13 22:30:11 2009
mtime: 0x4a0acdb5:2a88cbec -- Wed May 13 23:10:05 2009
crtime: 0x4a0ac45b:10899618 -- Wed May 13 22:30:11 2009
Inode Pathname
759 /local/dumps/exchange/exchange-2000-UCWB-KVM-18.bkfB-KVM-18.bkf
Do you know how the system was likely writing into
/local/dumps/exhcnag/eexchange-2000-UCWB-KVM-18.bkf? What this a
backup via rsync or tar? Was this some application writing into a
pre-existing file via NFS, or via local disk access?
Given the ctime/atime fields, I'm inclined to guess the latter, but it
would be good to know.
The stat dump for the inode 759 does *not* show logical block 1741329
getting mapped to physical block 529. So the question is how did that
happen?
I've started looking, and one thing popped up at me. I need to check
in with the Lustre folks who originally donated the code, but I don't
see any spinlock or mutexes protecting the inode's extent cache. So
if you are on an SMP machine, this could potentially have caused the
problem. How many CPU's or cores do you have? What does
/proc/cpuinfo report? Also, would it be correct to assume this file
is getting served up via Samba. My theory is that we might be running
into problems when two threads are simultaneously trying read and
write to a single file at the same time.
Hmm, what is accessing your files on this system? Are you just doing
backups? Is it just a backup server? Or are you serving up files
using Samba and there are clients which are accessing those files?
So if this the problem the following experiment should be able to
confirm whether it's the problem, by seeing if the problem goes away
if we short-circuit the inode's extent cache. In fs/ext4/extents.c,
try inserting a "return" statement to in ext4_ext_put_in_cache():
static void
ext4_ext_put_in_cache(struct inode *inode, ext4_lblk_t block,
__u32 len, ext4_fsblk_t start, int type)
{
struct ext4_ext_cache *cex;
return; <---- insert this line
BUG_ON(len == 0);
cex = &EXT4_I(inode)->i_cached_extent;
cex->ec_type = type;
cex->ec_block = block;
cex->ec_len = len;
cex->ec_start = start;
}
This should short circuit the i_cached_extent cache, and this may be
enough to make your problem go away. (If this theory is correct,
using mount -o nodelalloc probably won't make a difference, although
it might change the timing enough to make the bug harder to see.)
If that solves the problem, the right long-term fix will be to drop bin
a spinlock to protect i_cached_extent.
- Ted
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
