On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 03:44:43PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 1/13/15 2:08 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> > verify_set_primary_sb() scans the secondary superbocks based on the
> > geometry specified in the primary and determines the most likely correct
> > geometry by tracking how many superblocks are consistent across the set.
> > The most frequent geometry is copied into the primary superblock. The
> > return value is checked by the caller (phase1()) to determine whether a
> > brute force secondary scan is necessary.
> >
> > This generally occurs when not enough secondary sb's are consistent to
> > declare the geometry correct. If enough secondaries are consistent,
> > verify_set_primary_sb() returns the status of the last secondary sb that
> > was scanned. Corruptions to secondary supers other than the last are
> > thus resolved fine. If the last secondary is corrupt, however, an error
> > is returned to phase1(). This causes a brute force scan even if enough
> > supers were found to repair the last secondary.
> >
> > Move the initialization of retval to after the sb scan to return an
> > error only if not enough secondary supers were found to declare a
> > correct geometry.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Nice. Brute-force scan is awful, doing it when unnecessary stinks! :)
>
> could this be fstest-ed?
>
Yeah, the problem is easy to reproduce with xfs_db (just corrupt the
last sb). I think a test that runs repair through a few sets of sb
corruptions should be easy enough. I'll look into it.
Another situation I ran into while playing with these is the brute force
scan finding an older secondary (i.e., from a previous mkfs) and
eventually falling over based on its geometry rather than continuing to
scan for the a secondary of the current fs. I wasn't sure what was going
on at the time so I zeroed off the bdev and retested to confirm that was
the problem. I wonder how likely something like that might be in the
real world...
> Reviewed-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
Thanks for reviewing these!
Brian
> > ---
> > repair/sb.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/repair/sb.c b/repair/sb.c
> > index ad27756..dc154f7 100644
> > --- a/repair/sb.c
> > +++ b/repair/sb.c
> > @@ -724,7 +724,6 @@ verify_set_primary_sb(xfs_sb_t *rsb,
> > * sector size rather than the sector size in @rsb.
> > */
> > size = NUM_AGH_SECTS * (1 << (XFS_MAX_SECTORSIZE_LOG));
> > - retval = 0;
> > list = NULL;
> > num_ok = 0;
> > *sb_modified = 0;
> > @@ -779,6 +778,7 @@ verify_set_primary_sb(xfs_sb_t *rsb,
> > /*
> > * see if we have enough superblocks to bother with
> > */
> > + retval = 0;
> > if (num_ok < num_sbs / 2) {
> > retval = XR_INSUFF_SEC_SB;
> > goto out_free_list;
> > @@ -868,5 +868,5 @@ out_free_list:
> > free_geo(list);
> > free(sb);
> > free(checked);
> > - return(retval);
> > + return retval;
> > }
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
