Am Sun, 29 Oct 2017 21:53:38 +0900
schrieb Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 2017-10-29 17:07 GMT+09:00 Andreas Rohner <andreas.rohner@xxxxxxx>:
> > Hi Ryusuke,
> >
> > Thank you for reviewing my patch. I will rerun my tests to make sure
> > my conclusions were correct.
> >
> > The log output suggests to me, that you are hitting a totally
> > unrelated bug. I have seen that message before on one of my
> > experimental branches, but I didn't think it could happen with
> > stock NILFS2.
> >
> > My solution was to add the following piece of code to
> > nilfs_vdesc_is_live() in nilfs-utils:
> >
> > if (vdesc->vd_period.p_end == vdesc->vd_cno) {
> > /*
> > * This block was overwritten in the same logical segment,
> > but
> > * in a different partial segment. Probably because of
> > * fdatasync() or a flush to disk.
> > * Without this check, gc will cause buffer confliction
> > error
> > * if both partial segments are cleaned at the same time.
> > * In that case there will be two vdesc with the same ino,
> > * cno and offset.
> > */
> > return 0;
> > }
> >
> > I can't tell for sure if that will fix your problem. I am just
> > guessing. It isn't necessary with my setup, to reproduce the race
> > condition bug.
>
> Thank you, Andreas. This snippet looks to have fixed the error so
> far.
>
> Could you shape it to a patch (preferably a separate one) for
> nilfs-utils repo ?
Of course, but I am not sure how this error can occur exactly.
I tried to reproduce it with a small shell script using
fdatasync(), but I wasn't able to.
However, I am pretty sure, that the patch does no harm and is safe.
> I haven't yet succeeded to reproduce the original fs corruption error.
> Will continue to try reproducing the bug waiting for report from you
> and/or Clemens.
I think I forgot to mention, that I use a protection period of 30
seconds. Here is my full nilfs_cleanerd.conf:
protection_period 30
min_clean_segments 10%
max_clean_segments 30%
clean_check_interval 10
nsegments_per_clean 16
mc_nsegments_per_clean 16
cleaning_interval 0.1
mc_cleaning_interval 0.1
retry_interval 60
min_reclaimable_blocks 10%
mc_min_reclaimable_blocks 1%
use_set_suinfo
use_mmap
log_priority info
I can reproduce the corruption error with the latest kernel 4.14.0, and
I can confirm that it is fixed after applying the patch.
I used an older six core AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1090T Processor and a
Samsung 850 EVO SSD.
Best regards,
Andreas
> Thanks,
> Ryusuke Konishi
>
> >
> > I am rerunning my tests now to make sure I didn't make a mistake.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Andreas
> >
> > Am Sun, 29 Oct 2017 14:09:40 +0900
> > schrieb Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >
> >> Unfortunately the patch didn't fix this issue:
> >>
> >> [ 612.614615] NILFS (sda1): segctord starting. Construction
> >> interval = 5 seconds, CP frequency < 30 seconds
> >> [ 4298.841376] NILFS (sda1): nilfs_ioctl_move_inode_block:
> >> conflicting data buffer: ino=1155, cno=11, offset=1,
> >> blocknr=1216036, vblocknr=1198436
> >> [ 4298.841877] NILFS (sda1): error -17 preparing GC: cannot read
> >> source blocks
> >>
> >> Look like the bugsimulator hit other bug.
> >>
> >> When this happened, the disk usage was 100%:
> >>
> >> $ df /dev/sda1
> >> Filesystem 1K-blocks Used Available Use% Mounted on
> >> /dev/sda1 104849404 99655676 0 100% /test
> >>
> >> And, the error killed cleanerd. However, I could cleanly unmount
> >> the partition, and
> >> I didn't see any errors after remount the partition.
> >>
> >> As you commented, I have changed some parameters
> >> in /etc/nilfs_cleanerd.conf:
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >> mc_nsegments_per_clean 16 nsegments_per_clean 16
> >> max_clean_segments 30%
> >> cleaning_interval 0.1
> >> mc_cleaning_interval 0.1
> >> -------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> I will look into this issue with bugsimulator.
> >>
> >> Anyone can reproduce the original corruption issue in other way?
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Ryusuke Konishi
> >>
> >>
> >> 2017-10-29 2:16 GMT+09:00 Ryusuke Konishi
> >> <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > Sorry for my late reponse.
> >> > I could reproduce a corruption issue with the bug simulator.
> >> >
> >> > -----
> >> > [88805.039545] NILFS (sda1): segctord starting. Construction
> >> > interval = 5 second s, CP frequency < 30 seconds
> >> > [92817.941644] NILFS (sda1): nilfs_ioctl_move_inode_block:
> >> > conflicting data buff er: ino=10846, cno=92, offset=2,
> >> > blocknr=11425709, vblocknr=11227714 [92817.941936] NILFS (sda1):
> >> > error -17 preparing GC: cannot read source blocks -----
> >> >
> >> > Now I'm testing the patch. I will send it to upstream after it
> >> > turned out to suppress the issue.
> >> >
> >> > The patch itself looks good to me though I guess there may be
> >> > similar bugs. What makes things complicated seems that inode
> >> > block is not marked as dirty just when "propagate" function
> >> > carries a dirty state from a dirty node/data block.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, I hasten to apply this patch.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> > Ryusuke Konishi
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 2017-07-13 15:44 GMT+09:00 Andreas Rohner
> >> > <andreas.rohner@xxxxxxx>:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> Am Wed, 12 Jul 2017 09:08:57 +0900
> >> >> schrieb Ryusuke Konishi <konishi.ryusuke@xxxxxxxxx>:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Hi,
> >> >>>
> >> >>> 2017-07-11 15:19 GMT+09:00 Andreas Rohner
> >> >>> <andreas.rohner@xxxxxxx>:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > There is a race condition between the function
> >> >>> > nilfs_dirty_inode() and nilfs_set_file_dirty().
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > When a file is opened, nilfs_dirty_inode() is called to
> >> >>> > update the access timestamp in the inode. It calls
> >> >>> > __nilfs_mark_inode_dirty() in a separate transaction.
> >> >>> > __nilfs_mark_inode_dirty() caches the ifile buffer_head in
> >> >>> > the i_bh field of the inode info structure and marks it as
> >> >>> > dirty.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > After some data was written to the file in another
> >> >>> > transaction, the function nilfs_set_file_dirty() is called,
> >> >>> > which adds the inode to the ns_dirty_files list.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Then the segment construction calls
> >> >>> > nilfs_segctor_collect_dirty_files(), which goes through the
> >> >>> > ns_dirty_files list and checks the i_bh field. If there is a
> >> >>> > cached buffer_head in i_bh it is not marked as dirty again.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Since nilfs_dirty_inode() and nilfs_set_file_dirty() use
> >> >>> > separate transactions, it is possible that a segment
> >> >>> > construction that writes out the ifile occurs in-between the
> >> >>> > two. If this happens the inode is not on the ns_dirty_files
> >> >>> > list, but its ifile block is still marked as dirty and
> >> >>> > written out.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > In the next segment construction, the data for the file is
> >> >>> > written out and nilfs_bmap_propagate() updates the b-tree.
> >> >>> > Eventually the bmap root is written into the i_bh block,
> >> >>> > which is not dirty, because it was written out in another
> >> >>> > segment construction.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > As a result the bmap update can be lost, which leads to file
> >> >>> > system corruption. Either the virtual block address points
> >> >>> > to an unallocated DAT block, or the DAT entry will be reused
> >> >>> > for something different.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > The error can remain undetected for a long time. A typical
> >> >>> > error message would be one of the "bad btree" errors or a
> >> >>> > warning that a DAT entry could not be found.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > This bug can be reproduced reliably by a simple benchmark
> >> >>> > that creates and overwrites millions of 4k files.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Rohner <andreas.rohner@xxxxxxx>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> Will review, please wait for a while.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thank you, I have uploaded my benchmark on GitHub:
> >> >>
> >> >> https://github.com/zeitgeist87/bugsimulator
> >> >>
> >> >> The benchmark is very simple. It writes out 13107200 4k files
> >> >> in a two layer directory tree, so that every directory contains
> >> >> about 1000 files. Then it overwrites these files in an infinite
> >> >> loop.
> >> >>
> >> >> You need quite aggressive cleaner settings for it to keep up
> >> >> with the bugsimulator:
> >> >>
> >> >> mc_nsegments_per_clean 16
> >> >> nsegments_per_clean 16
> >> >> max_clean_segments 30%
> >> >> cleaning_interval 0.1
> >> >> mc_cleaning_interval 0.1
> >> >>
> >> >> If you run this benchmark on a fresh 100GB NILFS2 partition with
> >> >> the above cleaner settings, the file system will be corrupt in
> >> >> about half an hour. At least on my machine.
> >> >>
> >> >> With the patch for the race condition, it can run indefinetly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Regards,
> >> >> Andreas
> >> >>
> >> >>> Regards,
> >> >>> Ryusuke Konishi
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > ---
> >> >>> > fs/nilfs2/segment.c | 6 ++++--
> >> >>> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > diff --git a/fs/nilfs2/segment.c b/fs/nilfs2/segment.c
> >> >>> > index 70ded52dc1dd..50e12956c737 100644
> >> >>> > --- a/fs/nilfs2/segment.c
> >> >>> > +++ b/fs/nilfs2/segment.c
> >> >>> > @@ -1958,8 +1958,6 @@ static int
> >> >>> > nilfs_segctor_collect_dirty_files(struct nilfs_sc_info *sci,
> >> >>> > err, ii->vfs_inode.i_ino); return err;
> >> >>> > }
> >> >>> > - mark_buffer_dirty(ibh);
> >> >>> > - nilfs_mdt_mark_dirty(ifile);
> >> >>> > spin_lock(&nilfs->ns_inode_lock);
> >> >>> > if (likely(!ii->i_bh))
> >> >>> > ii->i_bh = ibh;
> >> >>> > @@ -1968,6 +1966,10 @@ static int
> >> >>> > nilfs_segctor_collect_dirty_files(struct nilfs_sc_info *sci,
> >> >>> > goto retry; }
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > + // Always redirty the buffer to avoid race
> >> >>> > condition
> >> >>> > + mark_buffer_dirty(ii->i_bh);
> >> >>> > + nilfs_mdt_mark_dirty(ifile);
> >> >>> > +
> >> >>> > clear_bit(NILFS_I_QUEUED, &ii->i_state);
> >> >>> > set_bit(NILFS_I_BUSY, &ii->i_state);
> >> >>> > list_move_tail(&ii->i_dirty,
> >> >>> > &sci->sc_dirty_files); --
> >> >>> > 2.13.2
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > --
> >> >>> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> >> >>> > linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to
> >> >>> > majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at
> >> >>> > http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >> >>> --
> >> >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> >> >>> linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to
> >> >>> majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at
> >> >>> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >> >>
> >> --
> >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> >> linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> More majordomo info at
> >> http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> linux-nilfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nilfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
