Hi Chandan, David,
When I'm trying to rebase dedupe patchset on top of Chadan's sub page
size patchset (using David's for-next-test-20160620), although the
rebase itself is quite simple, but I'm afraid that I found some bugs for
sub page size patchset, *without* dedupe patchset applied.
These bugs seems to be unrelated to each other
1) state leak at btrfs rmmod time
2) bytes_may_use leak at qgroup EDQUOTA error time
3) selftest is run several times at modules load time
15 times, to be more exact
And since I didn't found any immediate number related to run it 15
times, I assume at least it's not designed to do it 15 times.
The reproducer for 1) and 2) is quite simple, extracted from btrfs/022
test case:
------
dev=/dev/sdb5
mnt=/mnt/test
umount $dev &> /dev/null
mkfs.btrfs $dev -f
mount $dev $mnt -o nospace_cache
btrfs dedupe enable $mnt
btrfs sub create $mnt/sub
btrfs quota enable $mnt
# Just use small limit, making ftrace less noise.
btrfs qgroup limit 512K 0/257 $mnt
dd if=/dev/urandom of=$mnt/sub/test bs=1M count=1
umount $mnt
rmmod btrfs
------
At unmount time, kernel warning will happen due to may_use bytes leak.
I could dig it further, as it looks like a bug in space reservation
failure case.
------
BTRFS: space_info 1 has 8044544 free, is not full
BTRFS: space_info total=8388608, used=344064, pinned=0, reserved=0,
may_use=409600, readonly=0
------
And at rmmod time, btrfs will detect extent_state leak, whose length is
always 4095 (page size - 1).
Hope this will help, and I'm willing to help to fix the problem.
Thanks,
Qu
At 06/23/2016 08:17 PM, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 10:25:19PM +0530, Chandan Rajendra wrote:
I'm completely OK to do the rebase, but since I don't have 64K page size
machine to test the rebase, we can only test if 4K system is unaffected.
Although not much help, at least it would be better than making it compile.
Also such rebase may help us to expose bad design/unexpected corner case
in dedupe.
So if it's OK, please let me try to do the rebase.
Well, if you base dedupe on subpage, then it could be hard to find the
patchset that introduces bugs, or combination of both. We should be able
to test the features independently, and thus I'm proposing to first find
some common patchset that makes that possible.
I am not sure if I understood the above statement correctly. Do you mean to
commit the 'common/simple' patches from both the subpage-blocksize & dedupe
patchset first and then bring in the complicated ones later?
That would be great yes, but ...
If yes, then we have a problem doing that w.r.t subpage-blocksize
patchset. The first few patches bring in the core changes necessary for the
other remaining patches.
... not easily possible. I looked again for common functions that change
the singature and found only cow_file_range and run_delalloc_nocow. The
plan:
- separate patch that adds new parameters required by both patches to
the functions
- update all call sites, add 0/NULL as defaults for the new unused
parameters
- rebase both patches on top of this patch
How does this help: if a patch starts to use the new parameter, it
changes only the value at all call sites. This is much easier to verify
and merge manually compared to adding a new parameter to the middle of
the list, namely when the functions take 6+.
The other conflicts like conversion from PAGE_SIZE to the the block
oriented iterations will be harder, but these are usually localized and
can be resolved. We'll see if there are other options to reduce the
clashes but at the moment it's stuck at the two functions. Does that
explain it better?
--
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
