| Message ID | 1391186525-2965-1-git-send-email-wangshilong1991@gmail.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Accepted |
| Headers | show |
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com> wrote: > From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous > extent item, just switch into it. > > Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> Hi Shilong, This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently: btrfs/004 99s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad) --- tests/btrfs/004.out 2013-11-26 18:25:29.263333714 +0000 +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad 2014-02-05 12:20:26.053570545 +0000 @@ -1,3 +1,100 @@ QA output created by 004 *** test backref walking -*** done +unexpected output from + /home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal logical-resolve -P 137719808 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1 +expected inum: 278, expected address: 53248, file: /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1/snap1/p0/d3/da/d174/d1c/d3e/d4d/d16f/f132, got: +ioctl ret=-1, error: No such file or directory ... (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad' to see the entire diff) Ran: btrfs/004 Failures: btrfs/004 Failed 1 of 1 tests See comment inline below as well. Thanks > --- > fs/btrfs/backref.c | 34 +++------------------------------- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c > index aded3ef..4f59f07 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c > @@ -1333,37 +1333,9 @@ int extent_from_logical(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 logical, > if (ret < 0) > return ret; > > - while (1) { > - u32 nritems; > - if (path->slots[0] == 0) { > - btrfs_set_path_blocking(path); > - ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path); > - if (ret != 0) { > - if (ret > 0) { > - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within " > - "any extent\n", logical); > - ret = -ENOENT; > - } > - return ret; > - } > - } else { > - path->slots[0]--; > - } > - nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]); > - if (nritems == 0) { > - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within any extent\n", > - logical); > - return -ENOENT; > - } > - if (path->slots[0] == nritems) > - path->slots[0]--; > - > - btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path->nodes[0], found_key, > - path->slots[0]); > - if (found_key->type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY || > - found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) > - break; > - } > + ret = btrfs_previous_extent_item(fs_info->extent_root, path, 0); > + if (ret) > + return ret; This isn't equivalent to what we had before. We're now returning 1 when we previously returned -ENOENT. However this isn't what's making the test fail. > > if (found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) > size = fs_info->extent_root->leafsize; > -- > 1.8.4 > > -- > 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
Hi Filipe, > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> >> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous >> extent item, just switch into it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Hi Shilong, > > This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently: > > btrfs/004 99s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see > /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad) > --- tests/btrfs/004.out 2013-11-26 18:25:29.263333714 +0000 > +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad > 2014-02-05 12:20:26.053570545 +0000 > @@ -1,3 +1,100 @@ > QA output created by 004 > *** test backref walking > -*** done > +unexpected output from > + /home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal > logical-resolve -P 137719808 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1 > +expected inum: 278, expected address: 53248, file: > /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1/snap1/p0/d3/da/d174/d1c/d3e/d4d/d16f/f132, > got: > +ioctl ret=-1, error: No such file or directory > ... > (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out > /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad' to see > the entire diff) > Ran: btrfs/004 > Failures: btrfs/004 > Failed 1 of 1 tests > > See comment inline below as well. I could not reproduce this problem in my virtual box, how did you trigger the problem(for a loop, options etc?) Also, the strange thing is that this patch did not change the logic before, the function btrfs_previous_extent_item() had the same behavior as josef's previous codes did. > > Thanks > >> --- >> fs/btrfs/backref.c | 34 +++------------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c >> index aded3ef..4f59f07 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c >> @@ -1333,37 +1333,9 @@ int extent_from_logical(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 logical, >> if (ret < 0) >> return ret; >> >> - while (1) { >> - u32 nritems; >> - if (path->slots[0] == 0) { >> - btrfs_set_path_blocking(path); >> - ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path); >> - if (ret != 0) { >> - if (ret > 0) { >> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within " >> - "any extent\n", logical); >> - ret = -ENOENT; >> - } >> - return ret; >> - } >> - } else { >> - path->slots[0]--; >> - } >> - nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]); >> - if (nritems == 0) { >> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within any extent\n", >> - logical); >> - return -ENOENT; >> - } >> - if (path->slots[0] == nritems) >> - path->slots[0]--; >> - >> - btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path->nodes[0], found_key, >> - path->slots[0]); >> - if (found_key->type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY || >> - found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) >> - break; >> - } >> + ret = btrfs_previous_extent_item(fs_info->extent_root, path, 0); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; > > This isn't equivalent to what we had before. We're now returning 1 > when we previously returned -ENOENT. However this isn't what's making > the test fail. Yeah, Filipe, thanks for pointing this out.^_^ Thanks, Wang > >> >> if (found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) >> size = fs_info->extent_root->leafsize; >> -- >> 1.8.4 >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > Filipe David Manana, > > "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. > Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. > That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- 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
So i knew what was wrong here, we need found_key while btrfs_previous_extent_item() did set it properly..^_^ I will send a v2 to fix this, thanks! > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com> wrote: >> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> >> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous >> extent item, just switch into it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> > > Hi Shilong, > > This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently: > > btrfs/004 99s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see > /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad) > --- tests/btrfs/004.out 2013-11-26 18:25:29.263333714 +0000 > +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad > 2014-02-05 12:20:26.053570545 +0000 > @@ -1,3 +1,100 @@ > QA output created by 004 > *** test backref walking > -*** done > +unexpected output from > + /home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal > logical-resolve -P 137719808 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1 > +expected inum: 278, expected address: 53248, file: > /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1/snap1/p0/d3/da/d174/d1c/d3e/d4d/d16f/f132, > got: > +ioctl ret=-1, error: No such file or directory > ... > (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out > /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad' to see > the entire diff) > Ran: btrfs/004 > Failures: btrfs/004 > Failed 1 of 1 tests > > See comment inline below as well. > > Thanks > >> --- >> fs/btrfs/backref.c | 34 +++------------------------------- >> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c >> index aded3ef..4f59f07 100644 >> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c >> @@ -1333,37 +1333,9 @@ int extent_from_logical(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 logical, >> if (ret < 0) >> return ret; >> >> - while (1) { >> - u32 nritems; >> - if (path->slots[0] == 0) { >> - btrfs_set_path_blocking(path); >> - ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path); >> - if (ret != 0) { >> - if (ret > 0) { >> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within " >> - "any extent\n", logical); >> - ret = -ENOENT; >> - } >> - return ret; >> - } >> - } else { >> - path->slots[0]--; >> - } >> - nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]); >> - if (nritems == 0) { >> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within any extent\n", >> - logical); >> - return -ENOENT; >> - } >> - if (path->slots[0] == nritems) >> - path->slots[0]--; >> - >> - btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path->nodes[0], found_key, >> - path->slots[0]); >> - if (found_key->type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY || >> - found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) >> - break; >> - } >> + ret = btrfs_previous_extent_item(fs_info->extent_root, path, 0); >> + if (ret) >> + return ret; > > This isn't equivalent to what we had before. We're now returning 1 > when we previously returned -ENOENT. However this isn't what's making > the test fail. > >> >> if (found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) >> size = fs_info->extent_root->leafsize; >> -- >> 1.8.4 >> >> -- >> 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 > > > > -- > Filipe David Manana, > > "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. > Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. > That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." -- 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
Hi Filipe, > So i knew what was wrong here, we need found_key while btrfs_previous_extent_item() did set > it properly..^_^ > > I will send a v2 to fix this, thanks! > > >> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com> wrote: >>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> >>> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous >>> extent item, just switch into it. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >> >> Hi Shilong, >> >> This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently: I was trying to reproduce this xfstest failure(though we have known what's wrong with my previous patch). I did not really hit 004 failure, but i can reproduce btrfs/030 fail consistently, i think you might be interested in this: FSTYP -- btrfs PLATFORM -- Linux/i686 wangsl 3.13.0-4-default+ MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb2 MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb2 /mnt/scratch btrfs/030 [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.out.bad) --- tests/btrfs/030.out 2014-02-01 01:01:11.261999486 +0800 +++ /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.out.bad 2014-02-05 23:56:31.740988010 +0800 @@ -1 +1,3 @@ QA output created by 030 +failed: '/home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/src/fssum -r /tmp/tmp.30GWDU8xaU/2.fssum /mnt/scratch/mysnap2' +(see /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.full for details) ... (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/030.out /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.out.bad' to see the entire diff) Ran: btrfs/030 Failures: btrfs/030 Failed 1 of 1 tests dmesg show more information: [ 818.988731] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 29978 at fs/btrfs/send.c:5427 btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs]() [ 818.988733] Modules linked in: xt_tcpudp xt_pkttype xt_LOG xt_limit ip6t_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 ip6table_raw ipt_REJECT iptable_raw xt_CT iptable_filter ip6table_mangle nf_conntrack_netbios_ns nf_conntrack_broadcast nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 ip_tables xt_conntrack nf_conntrack ip6table_filter ip6_tables x_tables fuse bnep snd_ens1371 coretemp crc32_pclmul gameport crc32c_intel snd_rawmidi aesni_intel snd_ac97_codec sr_mod cdrom ata_generic ac97_bus snd_pcm snd_seq ppdev ata_piix snd_timer snd_seq_device ablk_helper ahci btusb snd libahci cryptd bluetooth libata vmw_balloon lrw aes_i586 xts serio_raw gf128mul vmw_vmci parport_pc pcspkr soundcore mptctl snd_page_alloc parport pcnet32 i2c_piix4 shpchp joydev floppy mii ac button rfkill sg autofs4 btrfs raid6_pq xor linear hid_generic [ 818.988766] usbhid hid uhci_hcd vmwgfx ehci_pci ehci_hcd processor thermal_sys usbcore hwmon ttm usb_common mptspi mptscsih mptbase scsi_transport_spi drm i2c_core scsi_dh_rdac scsi_dh_hp_sw scsi_dh_emc scsi_dh_alua scsi_dh dm_snapshot dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod [ 818.988786] CPU: 0 PID: 29978 Comm: btrfs Tainted: G W 3.13.0-4-default+ #44 [ 818.988787] Hardware name: VMware, Inc. VMware Virtual Platform/440BX Desktop Reference Platform, BIOS 6.00 07/02/2012 [ 818.988789] 00000000 00000000 c9561cf8 c06a8276 00000000 c9561d28 c02432f9 c080cf24 [ 818.988793] 00000000 0000751a fa1b7b6e 00001533 fa1a647b fa1a647b dade1140 dade1138 [ 818.988797] dade1000 c9561d38 c024338d 00000009 00000000 c9561df4 fa1a647b dade1000 [ 818.988800] Call Trace: [ 818.988858] [<c06a8276>] dump_stack+0x41/0x52 [ 818.988941] [<c02432f9>] warn_slowpath_common+0x79/0x90 [ 818.988962] [<fa1a647b>] ? btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs] [ 818.988975] [<fa1a647b>] ? btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs] [ 818.988977] [<c024338d>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x20 [ 818.988990] [<fa1a647b>] btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs] [ 818.989004] [<fa171250>] ? update_ioctl_balance_args+0x2c0/0x2c0 [btrfs] [ 818.989017] [<fa1714f8>] btrfs_ioctl+0x2a8/0x33f0 [btrfs] [ 818.989021] [<c026f956>] ? update_cfs_rq_blocked_load+0x116/0x170 [ 818.989023] [<c026fa55>] ? __enqueue_entity+0x65/0x70 [ 818.989025] [<c0274aec>] ? enqueue_entity+0x31c/0xe60 [ 818.989028] [<c0275c01>] ? enqueue_task_fair+0x5d1/0x7d0 [ 818.989031] [<c02082b8>] ? sched_clock+0x8/0x10 [ 818.989043] [<fa171250>] ? update_ioctl_balance_args+0x2c0/0x2c0 [btrfs] [ 818.989048] [<c03569a2>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x2d2/0x4b0 [ 818.989051] [<c0269ceb>] ? resched_task+0x3b/0x50 [ 818.989053] [<c026a6bd>] ? check_preempt_curr+0x5d/0x80 [ 818.989056] [<c026c305>] ? wake_up_new_task+0xe5/0x140 [ 818.989058] [<c0242780>] ? do_fork+0x100/0x2b0 [ 818.989061] [<c0356bd8>] SyS_ioctl+0x58/0x80 [ 818.989063] [<c06b4b59>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x28 [ 818.989065] ---[ end trace 7f6e499355102e48 ]--- [ 819.101601] BTRFS: device fsid 061bb332-4adc-4489-9a79-0931007b9d51 devid 1 transid 4 /dev/sdb2 [ 819.117930] BTRFS: device fsid 061bb332-4adc-4489-9a79-0931007b9d51 devid 1 transid 4 /dev/sdb2 [ 819.118653] BTRFS info (device sdb2): disk space caching is enabled [ 819.118655] BTRFS: flagging fs with big metadata feature [ 819.119958] BTRFS: creating UUID tree [ 819.271220] BTRFS: device fsid 67b57caa-2cde-40b5-b3b4-c4732bfeacd9 devid 1 transid 247 /dev/sdb1 [ 819.272128] BTRFS info (device sdb1): disk space caching is enabled I test with latest btrfs-next and xfstest, with/without this patch applied, i can not pass btrfs/030. I don't know if there are some patches missing in btrfs-next. Feel free to tell me if i miss something here.^_^ Thanks, Wang >> >> btrfs/004 99s ... [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see >> /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad) >> --- tests/btrfs/004.out 2013-11-26 18:25:29.263333714 +0000 >> +++ /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad >> 2014-02-05 12:20:26.053570545 +0000 >> @@ -1,3 +1,100 @@ >> QA output created by 004 >> *** test backref walking >> -*** done >> +unexpected output from >> + /home/fdmanana/git/hub/btrfs-progs/btrfs inspect-internal >> logical-resolve -P 137719808 /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1 >> +expected inum: 278, expected address: 53248, file: >> /home/fdmanana/btrfs-tests/scratch_1/snap1/p0/d3/da/d174/d1c/d3e/d4d/d16f/f132, >> got: >> +ioctl ret=-1, error: No such file or directory >> ... >> (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/004.out >> /home/fdmanana/git/hub/xfstests_2/results//btrfs/004.out.bad' to see >> the entire diff) >> Ran: btrfs/004 >> Failures: btrfs/004 >> Failed 1 of 1 tests >> >> See comment inline below as well. >> >> Thanks >> >>> --- >>> fs/btrfs/backref.c | 34 +++------------------------------- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 31 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c >>> index aded3ef..4f59f07 100644 >>> --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c >>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c >>> @@ -1333,37 +1333,9 @@ int extent_from_logical(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 logical, >>> if (ret < 0) >>> return ret; >>> >>> - while (1) { >>> - u32 nritems; >>> - if (path->slots[0] == 0) { >>> - btrfs_set_path_blocking(path); >>> - ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path); >>> - if (ret != 0) { >>> - if (ret > 0) { >>> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within " >>> - "any extent\n", logical); >>> - ret = -ENOENT; >>> - } >>> - return ret; >>> - } >>> - } else { >>> - path->slots[0]--; >>> - } >>> - nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]); >>> - if (nritems == 0) { >>> - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within any extent\n", >>> - logical); >>> - return -ENOENT; >>> - } >>> - if (path->slots[0] == nritems) >>> - path->slots[0]--; >>> - >>> - btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path->nodes[0], found_key, >>> - path->slots[0]); >>> - if (found_key->type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY || >>> - found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) >>> - break; >>> - } >>> + ret = btrfs_previous_extent_item(fs_info->extent_root, path, 0); >>> + if (ret) >>> + return ret; >> >> This isn't equivalent to what we had before. We're now returning 1 >> when we previously returned -ENOENT. However this isn't what's making >> the test fail. >> >>> >>> if (found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) >>> size = fs_info->extent_root->leafsize; >>> -- >>> 1.8.4 >>> >>> -- >>> 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 >> >> >> >> -- >> Filipe David Manana, >> >> "Reasonable men adapt themselves to the world. >> Unreasonable men adapt the world to themselves. >> That's why all progress depends on unreasonable men." > -- 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 02/05/2014 11:14 AM, Wang Shilong wrote: > Hi Filipe, > >> So i knew what was wrong here, we need found_key while btrfs_previous_extent_item() did set >> it properly..^_^ >> >> I will send a v2 to fix this, thanks! >> >> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>> >>>> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous >>>> extent item, just switch into it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> Hi Shilong, >>> >>> This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently: > I was trying to reproduce this xfstest failure(though we have known what's wrong with my previous patch). > I did not really hit 004 failure, but i can reproduce btrfs/030 fail consistently, i think you might be interested in this: > Do you guys have some CONFIG_ONLY_BREAK_FOR_ME=y set or something? I can't reproduce this failure either. Will you send the updated btrfs_previous_extent_item patch and then see if you can bisect down why 030 is failing for you? Thanks, Josef -- 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 Wed, Feb 5, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> wrote: > > On 02/05/2014 11:14 AM, Wang Shilong wrote: >> >> Hi Filipe, >> >>> So i knew what was wrong here, we need found_key while >>> btrfs_previous_extent_item() did set >>> it properly..^_^ >>> >>> I will send a v2 to fix this, thanks! >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong >>>> <wangshilong1991@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>>> >>>>> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search >>>>> previous >>>>> extent item, just switch into it. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>> >>>> Hi Shilong, >>>> >>>> This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently: >> >> I was trying to reproduce this xfstest failure(though we have known what's >> wrong with my previous patch). >> I did not really hit 004 failure, but i can reproduce btrfs/030 fail >> consistently, i think you might be interested in this: >> > Do you guys have some CONFIG_ONLY_BREAK_FOR_ME=y set or something? I can't > reproduce this failure either. Will you send the updated > btrfs_previous_extent_item patch and then see if you can bisect down why 030 > is failing for you? Thanks, I can't reproduce Shilong's 030 failure on latest btrfs-next, neither with nor without the previous_extent_item patch. And quite surprised, since the test is very deterministic (hardcoded fs structure). > > Josef
On 02/05/2014 11:14 AM, Wang Shilong wrote: > Hi Filipe, > >> So i knew what was wrong here, we need found_key while btrfs_previous_extent_item() did set >> it properly..^_^ >> >> I will send a v2 to fix this, thanks! >> >> >>> On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 4:42 PM, Wang Shilong <wangshilong1991@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>>> >>>> Since we have introduced btrfs_previous_extent_item() to search previous >>>> extent item, just switch into it. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> >>> Hi Shilong, >>> >>> This patch is making btrfs/004 fail for me, consistently: > I was trying to reproduce this xfstest failure(though we have known what's wrong with my previous patch). > I did not really hit 004 failure, but i can reproduce btrfs/030 fail consistently, i think you might be interested in this: > > FSTYP -- btrfs > PLATFORM -- Linux/i686 wangsl 3.13.0-4-default+ > MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb2 > MOUNT_OPTIONS -- /dev/sdb2 /mnt/scratch > > btrfs/030 [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.out.bad) > --- tests/btrfs/030.out 2014-02-01 01:01:11.261999486 +0800 > +++ /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.out.bad 2014-02-05 23:56:31.740988010 +0800 > @@ -1 +1,3 @@ > QA output created by 030 > +failed: '/home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/src/fssum -r /tmp/tmp.30GWDU8xaU/2.fssum /mnt/scratch/mysnap2' > +(see /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.full for details) > ... > (Run 'diff -u tests/btrfs/030.out /home/wangsl/tools/xfstests/results//btrfs/030.out.bad' to see the entire diff) > Ran: btrfs/030 > Failures: btrfs/030 > Failed 1 of 1 tests > > dmesg show more information: > > [ 818.988731] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 29978 at fs/btrfs/send.c:5427 btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs]() > [ 818.988733] Modules linked in: xt_tcpudp xt_pkttype xt_LOG xt_limit ip6t_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv6 ip6table_raw ipt_REJECT iptable_raw xt_CT iptable_filter ip6table_mangle nf_conntrack_netbios_ns nf_conntrack_broadcast nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 ip_tables xt_conntrack nf_conntrack ip6table_filter ip6_tables x_tables fuse bnep snd_ens1371 coretemp crc32_pclmul gameport crc32c_intel snd_rawmidi aesni_intel snd_ac97_codec sr_mod cdrom ata_generic ac97_bus snd_pcm snd_seq ppdev ata_piix snd_timer snd_seq_device ablk_helper ahci btusb snd libahci cryptd bluetooth libata vmw_balloon lrw aes_i586 xts serio_raw gf128mul vmw_vmci parport_pc pcspkr soundcore mptctl snd_page_alloc parport pcnet32 i2c_piix4 shpchp joydev floppy mii ac button rfkill sg autofs4 btrfs raid6_pq xor linear hid_generic > [ 818.988766] usbhid hid uhci_hcd vmwgfx ehci_pci ehci_hcd processor thermal_sys usbcore hwmon ttm usb_common mptspi mptscsih mptbase scsi_transport_spi drm i2c_core scsi_dh_rdac scsi_dh_hp_sw scsi_dh_emc scsi_dh_alua scsi_dh dm_snapshot dm_mirror dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod > [ 818.988786] CPU: 0 PID: 29978 Comm: btrfs Tainted: G W 3.13.0-4-default+ #44 > [ 818.988787] Hardware name: VMware, Inc. VMware Virtual Platform/440BX Desktop Reference Platform, BIOS 6.00 07/02/2012 > [ 818.988789] 00000000 00000000 c9561cf8 c06a8276 00000000 c9561d28 c02432f9 c080cf24 > [ 818.988793] 00000000 0000751a fa1b7b6e 00001533 fa1a647b fa1a647b dade1140 dade1138 > [ 818.988797] dade1000 c9561d38 c024338d 00000009 00000000 c9561df4 fa1a647b dade1000 > [ 818.988800] Call Trace: > [ 818.988858] [<c06a8276>] dump_stack+0x41/0x52 > [ 818.988941] [<c02432f9>] warn_slowpath_common+0x79/0x90 > [ 818.988962] [<fa1a647b>] ? btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs] > [ 818.988975] [<fa1a647b>] ? btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs] > [ 818.988977] [<c024338d>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1d/0x20 > [ 818.988990] [<fa1a647b>] btrfs_ioctl_send+0x34b/0xeb0 [btrfs] > [ 818.989004] [<fa171250>] ? update_ioctl_balance_args+0x2c0/0x2c0 [btrfs] > [ 818.989017] [<fa1714f8>] btrfs_ioctl+0x2a8/0x33f0 [btrfs] > [ 818.989021] [<c026f956>] ? update_cfs_rq_blocked_load+0x116/0x170 > [ 818.989023] [<c026fa55>] ? __enqueue_entity+0x65/0x70 > [ 818.989025] [<c0274aec>] ? enqueue_entity+0x31c/0xe60 > [ 818.989028] [<c0275c01>] ? enqueue_task_fair+0x5d1/0x7d0 > [ 818.989031] [<c02082b8>] ? sched_clock+0x8/0x10 > [ 818.989043] [<fa171250>] ? update_ioctl_balance_args+0x2c0/0x2c0 [btrfs] > [ 818.989048] [<c03569a2>] do_vfs_ioctl+0x2d2/0x4b0 > [ 818.989051] [<c0269ceb>] ? resched_task+0x3b/0x50 > [ 818.989053] [<c026a6bd>] ? check_preempt_curr+0x5d/0x80 > [ 818.989056] [<c026c305>] ? wake_up_new_task+0xe5/0x140 > [ 818.989058] [<c0242780>] ? do_fork+0x100/0x2b0 > [ 818.989061] [<c0356bd8>] SyS_ioctl+0x58/0x80 > [ 818.989063] [<c06b4b59>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x28 > [ 818.989065] ---[ end trace 7f6e499355102e48 ]--- > [ 819.101601] BTRFS: device fsid 061bb332-4adc-4489-9a79-0931007b9d51 devid 1 transid 4 /dev/sdb2 > [ 819.117930] BTRFS: device fsid 061bb332-4adc-4489-9a79-0931007b9d51 devid 1 transid 4 /dev/sdb2 > [ 819.118653] BTRFS info (device sdb2): disk space caching is enabled > [ 819.118655] BTRFS: flagging fs with big metadata feature > [ 819.119958] BTRFS: creating UUID tree > [ 819.271220] BTRFS: device fsid 67b57caa-2cde-40b5-b3b4-c4732bfeacd9 devid 1 transid 247 /dev/sdb1 > [ 819.272128] BTRFS info (device sdb1): disk space caching is enabled > > I test with latest btrfs-next and xfstest, with/without this patch applied, i can not pass btrfs/030. > I don't know if there are some patches missing in btrfs-next. > > Feel free to tell me if i miss something here.^_^ > Ok I've reproduced this on my VM, I'll try and get this fixed up. Thanks, Josef -- 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/backref.c b/fs/btrfs/backref.c index aded3ef..4f59f07 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/backref.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/backref.c @@ -1333,37 +1333,9 @@ int extent_from_logical(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 logical, if (ret < 0) return ret; - while (1) { - u32 nritems; - if (path->slots[0] == 0) { - btrfs_set_path_blocking(path); - ret = btrfs_prev_leaf(fs_info->extent_root, path); - if (ret != 0) { - if (ret > 0) { - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within " - "any extent\n", logical); - ret = -ENOENT; - } - return ret; - } - } else { - path->slots[0]--; - } - nritems = btrfs_header_nritems(path->nodes[0]); - if (nritems == 0) { - pr_debug("logical %llu is not within any extent\n", - logical); - return -ENOENT; - } - if (path->slots[0] == nritems) - path->slots[0]--; - - btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(path->nodes[0], found_key, - path->slots[0]); - if (found_key->type == BTRFS_EXTENT_ITEM_KEY || - found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) - break; - } + ret = btrfs_previous_extent_item(fs_info->extent_root, path, 0); + if (ret) + return ret; if (found_key->type == BTRFS_METADATA_ITEM_KEY) size = fs_info->extent_root->leafsize;