On 02.08.2012 13:57, Liu Bo wrote: > On 08/02/2012 07:40 PM, Arne Jansen wrote: >> On 02.08.2012 13:34, Liu Bo wrote: >>> On 08/02/2012 07:18 PM, Arne Jansen wrote: >>>> On 02.08.2012 12:36, Liu Bo wrote: >>>>> On 08/02/2012 06:30 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote: >>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 16:31:54 +0200, Stefan Behrens wrote: >>>>>>> On Wed, 01 Aug 2012 21:31:58 +0800, Liu Bo wrote: >>>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 09:07 PM, Jan Schmidt wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Wed, August 01, 2012 at 14:02 (+0200), Liu Bo wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 08/01/2012 07:45 PM, Stefan Behrens wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> With commit acce952b0, btrfs was changed to flag the filesystem with >>>>>>>>>>> BTRFS_SUPER_FLAG_ERROR and switch to read-only mode after a fatal >>>>>>>>>>> error happened like a write I/O errors of all mirrors. >>>>>>>>>>> In such situations, on unmount, the superblock is written in >>>>>>>>>>> btrfs_error_commit_super(). This is done with the intention to be able >>>>>>>>>>> to evaluate the error flag on the next mount. A warning is printed >>>>>>>>>>> in this case during the next mount and the log tree is ignored. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The issue is that it is possible that the superblock points to a root >>>>>>>>>>> that was not written (due to write I/O errors). >>>>>>>>>>> The result is that the filesystem cannot be mounted. btrfsck also does >>>>>>>>>>> not start and all the other btrfs-progs tools fail to start as well. >>>>>>>>>>> However, mount -o recovery is working well and does the right things >>>>>>>>>>> to recover the filesystem (i.e., don't use the log root, clear the >>>>>>>>>>> free space cache and use the next mountable root that is stored in the >>>>>>>>>>> root backup array). >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> This patch removes the writing of the superblock when >>>>>>>>>>> BTRFS_SUPER_FLAG_ERROR is set, and removes the handling of the error >>>>>>>>>>> flag in the mount function. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Yes, I have to admit that this can be a serious problem. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> But we'll need to send the error flag stored in the super block into >>>>>>>>>> disk in the future so that the next mount can find it unstable and do >>>>>>>>>> fsck by itself maybe. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hum, that's possible. However, I neither see >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> a) a safe way to get that flag to disk >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> nor >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> b) a situation where this flag would help. When we abort a transaction, we just >>>>>>>>> roll everything back to the last commit, i.e. a consistent state. So if we stop >>>>>>>>> writing a potentially corrupt super block, we should be fine anyway. Or am I >>>>>>>>> missing something? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm just wondering if we can roll everything back well, why do we need fsck? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the disks support barriers, we roll everything back very well. The >>>>>>> most recent superblock on the disks always defines a consistent >>>>>>> filesystem state. There are only two remaining filesystem consistency >>>>>>> issues left that can cause inconsistent states, one is the one that the >>>>>>> patch in this email addresses, and the second one is that the error >>>>>>> result from barrier_all_devices() is ignored (which I want to change next). >>>>>> >>>>>> Hi Liu Bo, >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have any remaining objections to that patch? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Hi Stefan, >>>>> >>>>> Still I have another question: >>>>> >>>>> Our metadata can be flushed into disk if we reach the limit, 32k, so we >>>>> can end up with updated metadata and the latest superblock if we do not >>>>> write the current super block. >>>> >>>> The old metadata stays valid until the new superblock is written, >>>> so no problem here, or maybe I don't understand your question :) >>>> >>> >>> Yeah, Arne, you're right :) >>> >>> But for undetected and unexpected errors as Arne had mentioned, I want >>> to keep the error flag which is able to inform users that this FS is >>> recommended (but not must) to do fsck at least. >> >> How about storing the flag in a different location than the superblock? >> If the fs is in an unknown state, every write potentially makes it only >> worse. >> > > IMO it does not make sense if we don't write the flag into disk, and on > ext4's side, it just tries to write the super block. > > Anyway, for now, our error flag has only been stored in memory, so what > about just keep it until we find a graceful way? Yeah, we need this patch to restore consistency. We can define a fixed area on disk (e.g. behind the superblock) where we can write the flag to without risking the superblock. > > > thanks, > liubo > > >>> >>> thanks, >>> liubo >>> >>>>> >>>>> Any ideas? >>>>> >>>>> thanks, >>>>> liubo >>>>> -- >>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in >>> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >> > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
