> On Jun 15, 2023, at 4:33 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > 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. I was mounting a (copy of) V4 metadump from customer. > > Does the test fail on a v5 filesytsem? N/A. > >> 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. > I get to know the cause by adding additional debug log along with my previous patch. > 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... > So far I don’t have such a script. Though I can try that, I am not sure if I can finish it shortly. I am wondering what if we won’t have a stable reproducer soon? thanks, wengang
