[cc trimmed]
On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 03:10:27PM +0800, Lu Fengqi wrote:
> Because the output is abnormal, except for the relevant DIR_ITEM and
> DIR_INDEX, I can't find the above mentiond INODE_ITEM and EXTENT_DATA.
> I wonder if the file system is online when this command is executed? If
> so, please re-execute it offline again; if not, could you apply my
> patches re-check it again?
The filesystem was offline and I had those 2 patches applied.
Marc
--
"A mouse is a device used to point at the xterm you want to type in" - A.S.R.
Microsoft is to operating systems ....
.... what McDonalds is to gourmet cooking
Home page: http://marc.merlins.org/ | PGP 1024R/763BE901
>From lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Jun 26 03:37:46 2017
Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=50126 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com)
by mail1.merlins.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87 #1)
id 1dPROn-0001kT-Ud
for <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 03:37:46 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,518,1449504000";
d="scan'208";a="20491849"
Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5])
by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2017 18:37:30 +0800
Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.83])
by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2694647E64CC;
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:37:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lufq.5F.lufq.5F (10.167.225.63) by
G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server
(TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:37:31 +0800
From: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:37:24 +0800
Message-ID: <20170626103727.8945-1-lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.13.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Originating-IP: [10.167.225.63]
X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: 2694647E64CC.AB674
X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name for IP address 59.151.112.132
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 59.151.112.132
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: marc@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1-mmrules_20121111 (2015-04-28) on
magic.merlins.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00,GREYLIST_ISWHITE,
RDNS_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1-mmrules_20121111
X-Spam-Report:
* -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
* [score: 0.0000]
* 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
* -1.5 GREYLIST_ISWHITE The incoming server has been whitelisted for this
* receipient and sender
Subject: [PATCH v3 1/4] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Fix false alert about file extent interrupt
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:08:31 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.merlins.org)
Status: RO
Content-Length: 1811
Lines: 52
As Qu mentioned in this thread
(https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg64469.html), compression
can cause regular extent to co-exist with inlined extent. This coexistence
makes things confusing. Since it was permitted currently, so fix
btrfsck to prevent a bunch of error logs that will make user feel
panic.
When check file extent, record the extent_end of regular extent to check
if there is a gap between the regular extents. Normally there is only one
inlined extent, so the extent_end of inlined extent is useless. However,
if regular extent can co-exist with inlined extent, the extent_end of
inlined extent also need to record.
Reported-by: Marc MERLIN <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
Changlog:
v2: Just fix reported-by
v3: Output verbose information when file extent interrupt
cmds-check.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/cmds-check.c b/cmds-check.c
index c052f66e..70d2b7f2 100644
--- a/cmds-check.c
+++ b/cmds-check.c
@@ -4782,6 +4782,7 @@ static int check_file_extent(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *fkey,
extent_num_bytes, item_inline_len);
err |= FILE_EXTENT_ERROR;
}
+ *end += extent_num_bytes;
*size += extent_num_bytes;
return err;
}
@@ -4847,8 +4848,8 @@ static int check_file_extent(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *fkey,
root->objectid, fkey->objectid, fkey->offset);
} else if (!no_holes && *end != fkey->offset) {
err |= FILE_EXTENT_ERROR;
- error("root %llu EXTENT_DATA[%llu %llu] interrupt",
- root->objectid, fkey->objectid, fkey->offset);
+ error("root %llu EXTENT_DATA[%llu %llu] interrupt, should start at %llu",
+ root->objectid, fkey->objectid, fkey->offset, *end);
}
*end += extent_num_bytes;
--
2.13.1
>From lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx Mon Jun 26 03:37:41 2017
Received: from [59.151.112.132] (port=50126 helo=heian.cn.fujitsu.com)
by mail1.merlins.org with esmtp (Exim 4.87 #1)
id 1dPROj-0001kT-Tq
for <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 03:37:41 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.22,518,1449504000";
d="scan'208";a="20491848"
Received: from unknown (HELO cn.fujitsu.com) ([10.167.33.5])
by heian.cn.fujitsu.com with ESMTP; 26 Jun 2017 18:37:30 +0800
Received: from G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (unknown [10.167.33.83])
by cn.fujitsu.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C5047E64D5;
Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:37:30 +0800 (CST)
Received: from lufq.5F.lufq.5F (10.167.225.63) by
G08CNEXCHPEKD02.g08.fujitsu.local (10.167.33.89) with Microsoft SMTP Server
(TLS) id 14.3.319.2; Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:37:32 +0800
From: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <linux-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
CC: <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2017 18:37:25 +0800
Message-ID: <20170626103727.8945-2-lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.13.1
In-Reply-To: <20170626103727.8945-1-lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <20170626103727.8945-1-lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Originating-IP: [10.167.225.63]
X-yoursite-MailScanner-ID: B3C5047E64D5.AC56F
X-yoursite-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-yoursite-MailScanner-From: lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Broken-Reverse-DNS: no host name for IP address 59.151.112.132
X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 59.151.112.132
X-SA-Exim-Rcpt-To: marc@xxxxxxxxxxx
X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.1-mmrules_20121111 (2015-04-28) on
magic.merlins.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00,GREYLIST_ISWHITE,
RDNS_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.1-mmrules_20121111
X-Spam-Report:
* -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
* [score: 0.0000]
* 0.8 RDNS_NONE Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS
* -1.5 GREYLIST_ISWHITE The incoming server has been whitelisted for this
* receipient and sender
Subject: [PATCH v3 2/4] btrfs-progs: lowmem check: Fix false alert about referencer count mismatch
X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.2.1 (built Tue, 02 Aug 2016 21:08:31 +0000)
X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on mail1.merlins.org)
Status: O
Content-Length: 915
Lines: 29
The normal back reference counting doesn't care about the extent referred
by the extent data in the shared leaf. The check_extent_data_backref
function need to skip the leaf that owner mismatch with the root_id.
Reported-by: Marc MERLIN <marc@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Lu Fengqi <lufq.fnst@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
---
cmds-check.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/cmds-check.c b/cmds-check.c
index 70d2b7f2..f42968cd 100644
--- a/cmds-check.c
+++ b/cmds-check.c
@@ -10692,7 +10692,8 @@ static int check_extent_data_backref(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
leaf = path.nodes[0];
slot = path.slots[0];
- if (slot >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf))
+ if (slot >= btrfs_header_nritems(leaf) ||
+ btrfs_header_owner(leaf) != root_id)
goto next;
btrfs_item_key_to_cpu(leaf, &key, slot);
if (key.objectid != objectid || key.type != BTRFS_EXTENT_DATA_KEY)
--
2.13.1
