One more thing.
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Carlos Eduardo Maiolino" <cmaiolin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, August 4, 2017 10:55:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] Stop searching for free slots in an inode chunk when there are none
>
> Hi Dave.
>
>
> > > Add a way to stop the loop when a free slot is not found in the btree,
> > > making the function to fall into the whole AG scan which will then, be
> > > able to detect the corruption and shut the filesystem down.
> >
> > That doesn't sound quite right. The initial scan and the restart
> > loop are both limited to scanning search_distance records - we never
> > search the entire tree except when it's really small (i..e less than
> > 10-20 records (640-1280 inodes) depending on balance). If the
> > pagino record to end of btree distance in both directions is shorter
> > than the search distance for a given loop (i.e. less than 10 records
> > from pagino to end-of-btree) then that is the only time a corrupted
> > agi->freecount can cause this problem.
> >
>
> I agree with you, but still, we are feasible to have this corruption
> happening,
> and I've seen reports of users hitting it.
>
>
> > IOWs, on production systems where there's more than a few hundred
> > inodes (i.e. the vast majority of installations) a corrupted
> > agi->freecount won't lead to a endless loop because search_distance
> > will terminate the retry loop and we'll allocate a new inode.
> >
> > To tell the truth, I'd much rather we just use the search distance
> > to prevent endless looping than add a second method of limiting
> > the search loop. i.e. don't reset search_distance when we restart
> > the search loop at pagino. That means even for small trees (<
> > search_distance * 2 records) we'll retry when we get to the end of
> > tree, but we'll still break out of the loop and allocate new inodes
> > as soon as we hit the search distance limit.
> >
>
Here, you are assuming we enter into the
while (!doneleft || !doneright) { }
on every interaction, so it will be able to decrease the searchdistance or you
mean by moving the --searchdistance somewhere else?
In very small trees we don't even enter the while loop (both doneleft and doneright are 1),
so searchdistance isn't decremented at all, resetting it or not will not make any difference
in this case.
My first thought about fixing this was to check both doneleft and doneright, with something like:
if ((pagino == NULLAGINO) && doneleft && doneright))
/* nothing more to search, break the loop */
But talking with Brian on irc yesterday, we agreed it doesn't sound quite right.
Also, if you want to see the xfstests I'm using for it:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cmaiolino/xfstests-dev/872e98ce156292ae2ab69ee55812e22c58556efe/tests/xfs/057
I didn't send it to the list yet because I want to add some better comments and '-d' flag to
the xfs_io as Darrick suggested, but it's on a good state to trigger the bug 100% of the times.
> Sounds reasonable, I'll try that and send a V2,
>
> Thank you!!
>
> --
> --Carlos
>
--
--Carlos
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
