On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 09:45:55AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 13, 2018 at 03:11:11PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 03, 2018 at 10:24:51AM -0500, Josef Bacik wrote:
> > > v1->v2:
> > > - addressed comments from reviewers.
> > > - fixed a bug in patch 6 that was introduced because of changes to upstream.
> > >
> > > -- Original message --
> > >
> > > The delayed refs rsv patches exposed a bunch of issues in our enospc
> > > infrastructure that needed to be addressed. These aren't really one coherent
> > > group, but they are all around flushing and reservations.
> > > may_commit_transaction() needed to be updated a little bit, and we needed to add
> > > a new state to force chunk allocation if things got dicey. Also because we can
> > > end up needed to reserve a whole bunch of extra space for outstanding delayed
> > > refs we needed to add the ability to only ENOSPC tickets that were too big to
> > > satisfy, instead of failing all of the tickets. There's also a fix in here for
> > > one of the corner cases where we didn't quite have enough space reserved for the
> > > delayed refs we were generating during evict(). Thanks,
> >
> > One testbox reports an assertion failure on current for-next,
> > generic/224. I'm reporting it under this patchset as it's my best guess.
> > Same host running misc-next (with the delayed rsv patchset) was fine and
> > the run with for-next (including this patchset) fails. The assertion is
> >
> > 5225 static int __reserve_metadata_bytes(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
> > 5226 struct btrfs_space_info *space_info,
> > 5227 u64 orig_bytes,
> > 5228 enum btrfs_reserve_flush_enum flush,
> > 5229 bool system_chunk)
> > 5230 {
> > 5231 struct reserve_ticket ticket;
> > 5232 u64 used;
> > 5233 u64 reclaim_bytes = 0;
> > 5234 int ret = 0;
> > 5235
> > 5236 ASSERT(orig_bytes);
> > ^^^^
> >
>
> Looking at your for-next branch on your github (I assume this is what you are
> testing)
>
> https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-devel/blob/for-next-20181212/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
>
> at line 5860 there's supposed to be a
>
> if (num_bytes == 0)
> return 0
>
> that's what I changed in v2 of this patchset, as I hit this bug as well. It
What does 'this' refer to? The patchset in this mail thread? If yes,
then something's wrong, because in the patch
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10709827/
there's a clear ASSERT(orig_bytes) in the context of one hunk:
@@ -5210,6 +5217,7 @@ static int __reserve_metadata_bytes(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
{
struct reserve_ticket ticket;
u64 used;
+ u64 reclaim_bytes = 0;
int ret = 0;
ASSERT(orig_bytes);
---
> looks like you still have v1 of this patchset applied. Thanks,
I looked up the patch series on patchwork too to double check that I haven't
missed it in my mailboxes but no.
The assert was introduced by "Btrfs: introduce ticketed enospc infrastructure"
which is quite old. The v2 of that patch is
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/1463506255-15918-1-git-send-email-jbacik@xxxxxx/
and also has the assert and not if (orig_bytes). Confused.
