| Message ID | 20170309013442.19957-2-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
At 03/13/2017 03:29 PM, Anand Jain wrote: > > > On 03/09/2017 09:34 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: >> Introduce a new function, btrfs_check_rw_degradable(), to check if all >> chunks in btrfs is OK for degraded rw mount. >> >> It provides the new basis for accurate btrfs mount/remount and even >> runtime degraded mount check other than old one-size-fit-all method. >> >> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> >> Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> >> Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> >> Tested-by: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> >> Tested-by: Dmitrii Tcvetkov <demfloro@demfloro.ru> >> --- >> fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 55 >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >> fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 1 + >> 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> index 73d56eef5e60..83613955e3c2 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c >> @@ -6765,6 +6765,61 @@ int btrfs_read_sys_array(struct btrfs_fs_info >> *fs_info) >> return -EIO; >> } >> >> +/* >> + * Check if all chunks in the fs is OK for read-write degraded mount >> + * >> + * Return true if the fs is OK to be mounted degraded read-write >> + * Return false if the fs is not OK to be mounted degraded >> + */ >> +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) >> +{ >> + struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &fs_info->mapping_tree; >> + struct extent_map *em; >> + u64 next_start = 0; >> + bool ret = true; >> + >> + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >> + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, 0, (u64)-1); >> + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >> + /* No chunk at all? Return false anyway */ >> + if (!em) { >> + ret = false; >> + goto out; >> + } >> + while (em) { >> + struct map_lookup *map; >> + int missing = 0; >> + int max_tolerated; >> + int i; >> + >> + map = (struct map_lookup *) em->bdev; > > > any idea why not map = em->map_lookup; here? My fault, will update the patch. Thanks, Qu > > Thanks, Anand > > >> + max_tolerated = >> + btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures( >> + map->type); >> + for (i = 0; i < map->num_stripes; i++) { >> + if (map->stripes[i].dev->missing) >> + missing++; >> + } >> + if (missing > max_tolerated) { >> + ret = false; >> + btrfs_warn(fs_info, >> + "chunk %llu missing %d devices, max tolerance is %d for writeble >> mount", >> + em->start, missing, max_tolerated); >> + free_extent_map(em); >> + goto out; >> + } >> + next_start = extent_map_end(em); >> + free_extent_map(em); >> + >> + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >> + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, next_start, >> + (u64)(-1) - next_start); >> + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >> + } >> +out: >> + return ret; >> +} >> + >> int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) >> { >> struct btrfs_root *root = fs_info->chunk_root; >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h >> index 59be81206dd7..db1b5ef479cf 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h >> @@ -538,4 +538,5 @@ struct list_head *btrfs_get_fs_uuids(void); >> void btrfs_set_fs_info_ptr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); >> void btrfs_reset_fs_info_ptr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); >> >> +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); >> #endif >> > > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 03/09/2017 09:34 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > Introduce a new function, btrfs_check_rw_degradable(), to check if all > chunks in btrfs is OK for degraded rw mount. > > It provides the new basis for accurate btrfs mount/remount and even > runtime degraded mount check other than old one-size-fit-all method. > > Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> > Signed-off-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com> > Tested-by: Austin S. Hemmelgarn <ahferroin7@gmail.com> > Tested-by: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> > Tested-by: Dmitrii Tcvetkov <demfloro@demfloro.ru> > --- > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > fs/btrfs/volumes.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 56 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index 73d56eef5e60..83613955e3c2 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -6765,6 +6765,61 @@ int btrfs_read_sys_array(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) > return -EIO; > } > > +/* > + * Check if all chunks in the fs is OK for read-write degraded mount > + * > + * Return true if the fs is OK to be mounted degraded read-write > + * Return false if the fs is not OK to be mounted degraded > + */ > +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) > +{ > + struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &fs_info->mapping_tree; > + struct extent_map *em; > + u64 next_start = 0; > + bool ret = true; > + > + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); > + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, 0, (u64)-1); > + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); > + /* No chunk at all? Return false anyway */ > + if (!em) { > + ret = false; > + goto out; > + } > + while (em) { > + struct map_lookup *map; > + int missing = 0; > + int max_tolerated; > + int i; > + > + map = (struct map_lookup *) em->bdev; any idea why not map = em->map_lookup; here? Thanks, Anand > + max_tolerated = > + btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures( > + map->type); > + for (i = 0; i < map->num_stripes; i++) { > + if (map->stripes[i].dev->missing) > + missing++; > + } > + if (missing > max_tolerated) { > + ret = false; > + btrfs_warn(fs_info, > + "chunk %llu missing %d devices, max tolerance is %d for writeble mount", > + em->start, missing, max_tolerated); > + free_extent_map(em); > + goto out; > + } > + next_start = extent_map_end(em); > + free_extent_map(em); > + > + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); > + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, next_start, > + (u64)(-1) - next_start); > + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); > + } > +out: > + return ret; > +} > + > int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) > { > struct btrfs_root *root = fs_info->chunk_root; > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h > index 59be81206dd7..db1b5ef479cf 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h > @@ -538,4 +538,5 @@ struct list_head *btrfs_get_fs_uuids(void); > void btrfs_set_fs_info_ptr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); > void btrfs_reset_fs_info_ptr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); > > +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); > #endif > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> >> +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) > >> +{ > >> + struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &fs_info->mapping_tree; > >> + struct extent_map *em; > >> + u64 next_start = 0; > >> + bool ret = true; > >> + > >> + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); > >> + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, 0, (u64)-1); > >> + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); > >> + /* No chunk at all? Return false anyway */ > >> + if (!em) { > >> + ret = false; > >> + goto out; > >> + } > >> + while (em) { > >> + struct map_lookup *map; > >> + int missing = 0; > >> + int max_tolerated; > >> + int i; > >> + > >> + map = (struct map_lookup *) em->bdev; > > > > > > any idea why not map = em->map_lookup; here? > > > My fault, will update the patch. > > Thanks, > Qu Sorry to bother, but looks like this patchset suddenly got forgotten. It still applies to 4.11 but I'm afraid it won't after 4.12 merge window. Any update on it? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
At 05/01/2017 06:21 PM, Dmitrii Tcvetkov wrote: >>>> +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) >>>> +{ >>>> + struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &fs_info->mapping_tree; >>>> + struct extent_map *em; >>>> + u64 next_start = 0; >>>> + bool ret = true; >>>> + >>>> + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >>>> + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, 0, (u64)-1); >>>> + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >>>> + /* No chunk at all? Return false anyway */ >>>> + if (!em) { >>>> + ret = false; >>>> + goto out; >>>> + } >>>> + while (em) { >>>> + struct map_lookup *map; >>>> + int missing = 0; >>>> + int max_tolerated; >>>> + int i; >>>> + >>>> + map = (struct map_lookup *) em->bdev; >>> >>> >>> any idea why not map = em->map_lookup; here? >> >> >> My fault, will update the patch. >> >> Thanks, >> Qu > > Sorry to bother, but looks like this patchset suddenly got forgotten. > It still applies to 4.11 but I'm afraid it won't after 4.12 merge > window. Any update on it? Just waiting for the flush error rework from Anand Jain. (Well, I still remember the original patchset has the same thing problem) Maybe Anand Jain has some idea on this. Thanks, Qu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 05/02/2017 08:20 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > At 05/01/2017 06:21 PM, Dmitrii Tcvetkov wrote: >>>>> +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) >>>>> +{ >>>>> + struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &fs_info->mapping_tree; >>>>> + struct extent_map *em; >>>>> + u64 next_start = 0; >>>>> + bool ret = true; >>>>> + >>>>> + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >>>>> + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, 0, (u64)-1); >>>>> + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); >>>>> + /* No chunk at all? Return false anyway */ >>>>> + if (!em) { >>>>> + ret = false; >>>>> + goto out; >>>>> + } >>>>> + while (em) { >>>>> + struct map_lookup *map; >>>>> + int missing = 0; >>>>> + int max_tolerated; >>>>> + int i; >>>>> + >>>>> + map = (struct map_lookup *) em->bdev; >>>> >>>> >>>> any idea why not map = em->map_lookup; here? >>> >>> >>> My fault, will update the patch. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Qu >> >> Sorry to bother, but looks like this patchset suddenly got forgotten. >> It still applies to 4.11 but I'm afraid it won't after 4.12 merge >> window. Any update on it? > > Just waiting for the flush error rework from Anand Jain. There were quite a number of trials on the btrfs dev flush to get that correctly, David reviewed previous once and the current and probably the final is titled [1] which is waiting for David. [1] [PATCH] btrfs: add framework to handle device flush error as a volume Thanks, Anand > (Well, I still remember the original patchset has the same thing problem) > > Maybe Anand Jain has some idea on this. > > Thanks, > Qu -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 73d56eef5e60..83613955e3c2 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -6765,6 +6765,61 @@ int btrfs_read_sys_array(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) return -EIO; } +/* + * Check if all chunks in the fs is OK for read-write degraded mount + * + * Return true if the fs is OK to be mounted degraded read-write + * Return false if the fs is not OK to be mounted degraded + */ +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) +{ + struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &fs_info->mapping_tree; + struct extent_map *em; + u64 next_start = 0; + bool ret = true; + + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, 0, (u64)-1); + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); + /* No chunk at all? Return false anyway */ + if (!em) { + ret = false; + goto out; + } + while (em) { + struct map_lookup *map; + int missing = 0; + int max_tolerated; + int i; + + map = (struct map_lookup *) em->bdev; + max_tolerated = + btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures( + map->type); + for (i = 0; i < map->num_stripes; i++) { + if (map->stripes[i].dev->missing) + missing++; + } + if (missing > max_tolerated) { + ret = false; + btrfs_warn(fs_info, + "chunk %llu missing %d devices, max tolerance is %d for writeble mount", + em->start, missing, max_tolerated); + free_extent_map(em); + goto out; + } + next_start = extent_map_end(em); + free_extent_map(em); + + read_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); + em = lookup_extent_mapping(&map_tree->map_tree, next_start, + (u64)(-1) - next_start); + read_unlock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock); + } +out: + return ret; +} + int btrfs_read_chunk_tree(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info) { struct btrfs_root *root = fs_info->chunk_root; diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h index 59be81206dd7..db1b5ef479cf 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.h @@ -538,4 +538,5 @@ struct list_head *btrfs_get_fs_uuids(void); void btrfs_set_fs_info_ptr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); void btrfs_reset_fs_info_ptr(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); +bool btrfs_check_rw_degradable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info); #endif