| Message ID | 20170307223444.7526-1-kilobyte@angband.pl (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:34:44PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > If your filesystem has, eg, data:raid0 metadata:raid1, and you run "btrfs > balance -dconvert=raid1", the meta.target field will be uninitialized. > That's otherwise ok, as it's unused except for this warning. > > Thus, let's use the existing set of raid levels for the comparison. > > As a side effect, non-convert balances will now nag about data>metadata. > > Signed-off-by: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl> > --- > To reproduce: > dd if=/dev/zero bs=1048576 count=1 seek=4095 of=ra > dd if=/dev/zero bs=1048576 count=1 seek=4095 of=rb > mkfs.btrfs ra rb # defaults to -draid0 -mraid1 > losetup -f ra > losetup -f rb > mount /dev/loop0 /mnt/vol1 > btrfs balance start -dconvert=raid1 /mnt/vol1 > > > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:34:07PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > This looks good, but this also brings another side effect, @bctl would > > also be kept in balance_item which will be used to resume balance in > > case of crash, so it may see a different bctl->meta.target. > > > > So would you please use local varibles for meta.target and data.target? > > Okay. > > I'm not sure why storing a bogus value that came from userspace and was > uninitialized there (0 in normal use) would be better, but here we go: > v2 doesn't overwrite what we got anymore. > > Unrelated: I wonder if the profiles in the warning message shouldn't be > printk'ed as words (akin to ebce0e01), but we don't have a function to do > that, have we? > We don't have it in kernel, but in progs I believe. For this patch, Reviewed-by: Liu Bo <bo.li.liu@oracle.com> Thanks, -liubo > > Meow! > > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 12 +++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index 3645af2749f8..987f395ddec5 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -3750,6 +3750,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl, > struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_args *bargs) > { > struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = bctl->fs_info; > + __u64 meta_target, data_target; > u64 allowed; > int mixed = 0; > int ret; > @@ -3846,11 +3847,16 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl, > } > } while (read_seqretry(&fs_info->profiles_lock, seq)); > > - if (btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(bctl->meta.target) < > - btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(bctl->data.target)) { > + /* if we're not converting, the target field is uninitialized */ > + meta_target = (bctl->meta.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) ? > + bctl->meta.target : fs_info->avail_metadata_alloc_bits; > + data_target = (bctl->data.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) ? > + bctl->data.target : fs_info->avail_data_alloc_bits; > + if (btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(meta_target) < > + btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(data_target)) { > btrfs_warn(fs_info, > "metadata profile 0x%llx has lower redundancy than data profile 0x%llx", > - bctl->meta.target, bctl->data.target); > + meta_target, data_target); > } > > ret = insert_balance_item(fs_info, bctl); > -- > 2.11.0 > -- 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 Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 11:34:44PM +0100, Adam Borowski wrote: > On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 12:34:07PM -0800, Liu Bo wrote: > > This looks good, but this also brings another side effect, @bctl would > > also be kept in balance_item which will be used to resume balance in > > case of crash, so it may see a different bctl->meta.target. > > > > So would you please use local varibles for meta.target and data.target? > > Okay. > > I'm not sure why storing a bogus value that came from userspace and was > uninitialized there (0 in normal use) would be better, but here we go: > v2 doesn't overwrite what we got anymore. > > Unrelated: I wonder if the profiles in the warning message shouldn't be > printk'ed as words (akin to ebce0e01), but we don't have a function to do > that, have we? Printing human readable strings would be better, you can copy the missing functions from progs as Lui pointed out. > @@ -3750,6 +3750,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl, > struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_args *bargs) > { > struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = bctl->fs_info; > + __u64 meta_target, data_target; Changed to u64, the __u64 is for kernel/userspace interfaces. > u64 allowed; > int mixed = 0; > int ret; > @@ -3846,11 +3847,16 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl, > } > } while (read_seqretry(&fs_info->profiles_lock, seq)); > > - if (btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(bctl->meta.target) < > - btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(bctl->data.target)) { > + /* if we're not converting, the target field is uninitialized */ > + meta_target = (bctl->meta.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) ? > + bctl->meta.target : fs_info->avail_metadata_alloc_bits; > + data_target = (bctl->data.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) ? > + bctl->data.target : fs_info->avail_data_alloc_bits; > + if (btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(meta_target) < > + btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(data_target)) { > btrfs_warn(fs_info, > "metadata profile 0x%llx has lower redundancy than data profile 0x%llx", > - bctl->meta.target, bctl->data.target); > + meta_target, data_target); > } The patch does not apply to current master, there's 3861 if (bctl->sys.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) { 3862 fs_info->num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures = min( 3863 btrfs_calc_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(fs_info), 3864 btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures( 3865 bctl->sys.target)); 3866 } 3867 followed by the line below, I'll merge that manually but slightly wonder which branch you have used as a base. No big deal though, I'll add the patch to the queue. Thanks. > ret = insert_balance_item(fs_info, bctl); -- 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 Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 02:43:27PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > The patch does not apply to current master, there's > > 3861 if (bctl->sys.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) { > 3862 fs_info->num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures = min( > 3863 btrfs_calc_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(fs_info), > 3864 btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures( > 3865 bctl->sys.target)); > 3866 } > 3867 > > followed by the line below, I'll merge that manually but slightly wonder > which branch you have used as a base. No big deal though, I'll add the > patch to the queue. Thanks. > > > ret = insert_balance_item(fs_info, bctl); I had Qu's chunk counting patchset in my tree (and some irrelevant stuff, like tty patches). But this means there'll be a minor conflict between the two once you get around to merging Qu's stuff. It's obvious how they interact; the bogus warning happens with and without chunk counting.
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index 3645af2749f8..987f395ddec5 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -3750,6 +3750,7 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl, struct btrfs_ioctl_balance_args *bargs) { struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = bctl->fs_info; + __u64 meta_target, data_target; u64 allowed; int mixed = 0; int ret; @@ -3846,11 +3847,16 @@ int btrfs_balance(struct btrfs_balance_control *bctl, } } while (read_seqretry(&fs_info->profiles_lock, seq)); - if (btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(bctl->meta.target) < - btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(bctl->data.target)) { + /* if we're not converting, the target field is uninitialized */ + meta_target = (bctl->meta.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) ? + bctl->meta.target : fs_info->avail_metadata_alloc_bits; + data_target = (bctl->data.flags & BTRFS_BALANCE_ARGS_CONVERT) ? + bctl->data.target : fs_info->avail_data_alloc_bits; + if (btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(meta_target) < + btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(data_target)) { btrfs_warn(fs_info, "metadata profile 0x%llx has lower redundancy than data profile 0x%llx", - bctl->meta.target, bctl->data.target); + meta_target, data_target); } ret = insert_balance_item(fs_info, bctl);