On 2020/5/8 下午12:23, Tyler Richmond wrote: > Something went wrong: > > Reinitialize checksum tree > Unable to find block group for 0 > Unable to find block group for 0 > Unable to find block group for 0 > ctree.c:2272: split_leaf: BUG_ON `1` triggered, value 1 > btrfs(+0x6dd94)[0x55a933af7d94] > btrfs(+0x71b94)[0x55a933afbb94] > btrfs(btrfs_search_slot+0x11f0)[0x55a933afd6c8] > btrfs(btrfs_csum_file_block+0x432)[0x55a933b19d09] > btrfs(+0x360b2)[0x55a933ac00b2] > btrfs(+0x46a3e)[0x55a933ad0a3e] > btrfs(main+0x98)[0x55a933a9fe88] > /lib/x86_64-linux-gnu/libc.so.6(__libc_start_main+0xf3)[0x7f263ed550b3] > btrfs(_start+0x2e)[0x55a933a9fa0e] > Aborted This means no space for extra metadata... Anyway the csum tree problem shouldn't be a big thing, you could leave it and call it a day. BTW, as long as btrfs check reports no extra problem for the inode generation, it should be pretty safe to use the fs. Thanks, Qu > > I just noticed I have btrfs-progs 5.6 installed and 5.6.1 is > available. I'll let that try overnight? > > On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 8:11 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2020/5/7 下午11:52, Tyler Richmond wrote: >>> Thank you for helping. The end result of the scan was: >>> >>> >>> [1/7] checking root items >>> [2/7] checking extents >>> [3/7] checking free space cache >>> [4/7] checking fs roots >> >> Good news is, your fs is still mostly fine. >> >>> [5/7] checking only csums items (without verifying data) >>> there are no extents for csum range 0-69632 >>> csum exists for 0-69632 but there is no extent record >>> ... >>> ... >>> there are no extents for csum range 946692096-946827264 >>> csum exists for 946692096-946827264 but there is no extent record >>> there are no extents for csum range 946831360-947912704 >>> csum exists for 946831360-947912704 but there is no extent record >>> ERROR: errors found in csum tree >> >> Only extent tree is corrupted. >> >> Normally btrfs check --init-csum-tree should be able to handle it. >> >> But still, please be sure you're using the latest btrfs-progs to fix it. >> >> Thanks, >> Qu >> >>> [6/7] checking root refs >>> [7/7] checking quota groups skipped (not enabled on this FS) >>> found 44157956026368 bytes used, error(s) found >>> total csum bytes: 42038602716 >>> total tree bytes: 49688616960 >>> total fs tree bytes: 1256427520 >>> total extent tree bytes: 1709105152 >>> btree space waste bytes: 3172727316 >>> file data blocks allocated: 261625653436416 >>> referenced 47477768499200 >>> >>> What do I need to do to fix all of this? >>> >>> On Thu, May 7, 2020 at 1:52 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2020/5/7 下午1:43, Tyler Richmond wrote: >>>>> Well, the repair doesn't look terribly successful. >>>>> >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>> >>>> This means there are more problems, not only the hash name mismatch. >>>> >>>> This means the fs is already corrupted, the name hash is just one >>>> unrelated symptom. >>>> >>>> The only good news is, btrfs-progs abort the transaction, thus no >>>> further damage to the fs. >>>> >>>> Please run a plain btrfs-check to show what's the problem first. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Qu >>>> >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> parent transid verify failed on 218620880703488 wanted 6875841 found 6876224 >>>>> Ignoring transid failure >>>>> ERROR: child eb corrupted: parent bytenr=225049956061184 item=84 >>>>> parent level=1 >>>>> child level=4 >>>>> ERROR: failed to zero log tree: -17 >>>>> ERROR: attempt to start transaction over already running one >>>>> WARNING: reserved space leaked, flag=0x4 bytes_reserved=4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066086400 len 4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066086400 len 4096 >>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066086400 len 4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066094592 len 4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066094592 len 4096 >>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066094592 len 4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066102784 len 4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066102784 len 4096 >>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066102784 len 4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066131456 len 4096 >>>>> extent buffer leak: start 225049066131456 len 4096 >>>>> WARNING: dirty eb leak (aborted trans): start 225049066131456 len 4096 >>>>> >>>>> What is going on? >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:30 PM Tyler Richmond <t.d.richmond@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Chris, I had used the correct mountpoint in the command. I just edited >>>>>> it in the email to be /mountpoint for consistency. >>>>>> >>>>>> Qu, I'll try the repair. Fingers crossed! >>>>>> >>>>>> On Wed, May 6, 2020 at 9:13 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2020/5/7 上午5:54, Tyler Richmond wrote: >>>>>>>> Hello, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I looked up this error and it basically says ask a developer to >>>>>>>> determine if it's a false error or not. I just started getting some >>>>>>>> slow response times, and looked at the dmesg log to find a ton of >>>>>>>> these errors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> [192088.446299] BTRFS critical (device sdh): corrupt leaf: root=5 >>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode generation: >>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827] >>>>>>>> [192088.449823] BTRFS error (device sdh): block=203510940835840 read >>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected >>>>>>>> [192088.459238] BTRFS critical (device sdh): corrupt leaf: root=5 >>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode generation: >>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827] >>>>>>>> [192088.462773] BTRFS error (device sdh): block=203510940835840 read >>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected >>>>>>>> [192088.464711] BTRFS critical (device sdh): corrupt leaf: root=5 >>>>>>>> block=203510940835840 slot=4 ino=1311670, invalid inode generation: >>>>>>>> has 18446744073709551492 expect [0, 6875827] >>>>>>>> [192088.468457] BTRFS error (device sdh): block=203510940835840 read >>>>>>>> time tree block corruption detected >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> btrfs device stats, however, doesn't show any errors. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is there anything I should do about this, or should I just continue >>>>>>>> using my array as normal? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is caused by older kernel underflow inode generation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Latest btrfs-progs can fix it, using btrfs check --repair. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Or you can go safer, by manually locating the inode using its inode >>>>>>> number (1311670), and copy it to some new location using previous >>>>>>> working kernel, then delete the old file, copy the new one back to fix it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Qu >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>> >>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
