On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 11:09:41PM +0000, Wengang Wang wrote: > When mounting the problematic metadump with the patches, I see the following reported. > > For more information about troubleshooting your instance using a console connection, see the documentation: https://docs.cloud.oracle.com/en-us/iaas/Content/Compute/References/serialconsole.htm#four > ================================================= > [ 67.212496] loop: module loaded > [ 67.214732] loop0: detected capacity change from 0 to 629137408 > [ 67.247542] XFS (loop0): Deprecated V4 format (crc=0) will not be supported after September 2030. > [ 67.249257] XFS (loop0): Mounting V4 Filesystem af755a98-5f62-421d-aa81-2db7bffd2c40 > [ 72.241546] XFS (loop0): Starting recovery (logdev: internal) > [ 92.218256] XFS (loop0): Internal error ltbno + ltlen > bno at line 1957 of file fs/xfs/libxfs/xfs_alloc.c. Caller xfs_free_ag_extent+0x3f6/0x870 [xfs] > [ 92.249802] CPU: 1 PID: 4201 Comm: mount Not tainted 6.4.0-rc6 #8 What is the test you are running? Please describe how you reproduced this failure - a reproducer script would be the best thing here. Does the test fail on a v5 filesytsem? > I think that’s because that the same EFI record was going to be freed again > by xfs_extent_free_finish_item() after it already got freed by xfs_efi_item_recover(). > I was trying to fix above issue in my previous patch by checking the intent > log item’s lsn and avoid running iop_recover() in xlog_recover_process_intents(). > > Now I am thinking if we can pass a flag, say XFS_EFI_PROCESSED, from > xfs_efi_item_recover() after it processed that record to the xfs_efi_log_item > memory structure somehow. In xfs_extent_free_finish_item(), we skip to process > that xfs_efi_log_item on seeing XFS_EFI_PROCESSED and return OK. By that > we can avoid the double free. I'm not really interested in speculation of the cause or the fix at this point. I want to know how the problem is triggered so I can work out exactly what caused it, along with why we don't have coverage of this specific failure case in fstests already. Indeed, if you have a script that is reproducing this, please turn it into a fstests test so it becomes a regression test that is always run... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
