Re: [PATCH v5 00/12] btrfs: Enhancement to tree block validation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 09:18:03PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2019/2/15 下午9:10, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 15.02.19 г. 12:50 ч., Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >> Patchset can be fetched from github:
> >> https://github.com/adam900710/linux/tree/write_time_tree_checker
> >> Which is based on v5.0-rc1 tag.
> >> Also there is no conflict rebasing the patchset to misc-next.
> >>
> >> This patchset has the following 3 features:
> >> - Tree block validation output enhancement
> >>   * Output validation failure timing (write time or read time)
> >>   * Always output tree block level/key mismatch error message
> >>     This part is already submitted and reviewed.
> >>
> >> - Write time tree block validation check
> >>   To catch memory corruption either from hardware or kernel.
> >>   Example output would be:
> >>
> >>     BTRFS critical (device dm-3): corrupt leaf: root=2 block=1350630375424 slot=68, bad key order, prev (10510212874240 169 0) current (1714119868416 169 0)
> >>     BTRFS error (device dm-3): write time tree block corruption detected
> > This is not good.  Those two error messages should be collapsed into
> > one. Otherwise it's hard to actually match them up.
> 
> That shouldn't be a problem, since the error won't happen so frequently
> there is no other error message that could interrupt these 2 lines.
> 
> > Better output will
> > be "Corrupt leaf detected during writing: root=..." and eliminate "write
> > time tree block corruption detected" line. Is that feasible?
> 
> Feasible, currently tree checker only get called in 3 locations:
> 1) read time full checker
> 2) mark dirty time basic checker
> 3) write time full checker
> 
> And they all have different internal bool to indicate the timing, so
> it's possible to output the timing.
> 
> But that needs to pass the internal bool down a long long way, for all
> the output help to accept an extra string.
> I'm not a big fan for that, and prefer a timing neutral tree checker.

I'd rather not merge the error messages, as we'll possibly add more
sanity checks to various functions so there could be a list of problems
and there's one final note about when it happened (read time/write
time).

Matching the lines together is desirable though, so if the block number
could be part of all messages, I hope this makes it usable for analysis.

Reading btree_readpage_end_io_hook, the message should be under the err:
label, as there are 3 other possible messages printed (bad block start,
fsid and level).



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux