On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 5:56 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On 2020/2/9 上午5:57, John Hendy wrote: > > On phone due to no OS, so apologies if this is in html mode. Indeed, I > > can't mount or boot any longer. I get the error: > > > > Error (device dm-0) in btrfs_replay_log:2228: errno=-22 unknown (Failed > > to recover log tree) > > BTRFS error (device dm-0): open_ctree failed > > That can be easily fixed by `btrfs rescue zero-log`. > Whew. This was most helpful and it is wonderful to be booting at least. I think the outstanding issues are: - what should I do about `btrfs check --repair seg` faulting? - how can I deal with this (probably related to seg fault) ghost file that cannot be deleted? - I'm not sure if you looked at the post --repair log, but there a ton of these errors that didn't used to be there: backpointer mismatch on [13037375488 20480] ref mismatch on [13037395968 892928] extent item 0, found 1 data backref 13037395968 root 263 owner 4257169 offset 0 num_refs 0 not found in extent tree incorrect local backref count on 13037395968 root 263 owner 4257169 offset 0 found 1 wanted 0 back 0x5627f59cadc0 Here is the latest btrfs check output after the zero-log operation. - https://pastebin.com/KWeUnk0y I'm hoping once that file is deleted, it's a matter of --init-csum-tree and perhaps I'm set? Or --init-extent-tree? Thanks, John > At least, btrfs check --repair didn't make things worse. > > Thanks, > Qu > > > > John > > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020, 1:56 PM John Hendy <jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > This is not going so hot. Updates: > > > > booted from arch install, pre repair btrfs check: > > - https://pastebin.com/6vNaSdf2 > > > > btrfs check --mode=lowmem as requested by Chris: > > - https://pastebin.com/uSwSTVVY > > > > Then I did btrfs check --repair, which seg faulted at the end. I've > > typed them off of pictures I took: > > > > Starting repair. > > Opening filesystem to check... > > Checking filesystem on /dev/mapper/ssd > > [1/7] checking root items > > Fixed 0 roots. > > [2/7] checking extents > > parent transid verify failed on 20271138064 wanted 68719924810 found > > 448074 > > parent transid verify failed on 20271138064 wanted 68719924810 found > > 448074 > > Ignoring transid failure > > # ... repeated the previous two lines maybe hundreds of times > > # ended with this: > > ref mismatch on [12797435904 268505088] extent item 1, found 412 > > [1] 1814 segmentation fault (core dumped) btrfs check --repair > > /dev/mapper/ssd > > > > This was with btrfs-progs 5.4 (the install USB is maybe a month old). > > > > Here is the output of btrfs check after the --repair attempt: > > - https://pastebin.com/6MYRNdga > > > > I rebooted to write this email given the seg fault, as I wanted to > > make sure that I should still follow-up --repair with > > --init-csum-tree. I had pictures of the --repair output, but Firefox > > just wouldn't load imgur.com <http://imgur.com> for me to post the > > pics and was acting > > really weird. In suspiciously checking dmesg, things have gone ro on > > me :( Here is the dmesg from this session: > > - https://pastebin.com/a2z7xczy > > > > The gist is: > > > > [ 40.997935] BTRFS critical (device dm-0): corrupt leaf: root=7 > > block=172703744 slot=0, csum end range (12980568064) goes beyond the > > start range (12980297728) of the next csum item > > [ 40.997941] BTRFS info (device dm-0): leaf 172703744 gen 450983 > > total ptrs 34 free space 29 owner 7 > > [ 40.997942] item 0 key (18446744073709551606 128 12979060736) > > itemoff 14811 itemsize 1472 > > [ 40.997944] item 1 key (18446744073709551606 128 12980297728) > > itemoff 13895 itemsize 916 > > [ 40.997945] item 2 key (18446744073709551606 128 12981235712) > > itemoff 13811 itemsize 84 > > # ... there's maybe 30 of these item n key lines in total > > [ 40.997984] BTRFS error (device dm-0): block=172703744 write time > > tree block corruption detected > > [ 41.016793] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in > > btrfs_commit_transaction:2332: errno=-5 IO failure (Error while > > writing out transaction) > > [ 41.016799] BTRFS info (device dm-0): forced readonly > > [ 41.016802] BTRFS warning (device dm-0): Skipping commit of aborted > > transaction. > > [ 41.016804] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in cleanup_transaction:1890: > > errno=-5 IO failure > > [ 41.016807] BTRFS info (device dm-0): delayed_refs has NO entry > > [ 41.023473] BTRFS warning (device dm-0): Skipping commit of aborted > > transaction. > > [ 41.024297] BTRFS info (device dm-0): delayed_refs has NO entry > > [ 44.509418] systemd-journald[416]: > > /var/log/journal/45c06c25e25f434195204efa939019ab/system.journal: > > Journal file corrupted, rotating. > > [ 44.509440] systemd-journald[416]: Failed to rotate > > /var/log/journal/45c06c25e25f434195204efa939019ab/system.journal: > > Read-only file system > > [ 44.509450] systemd-journald[416]: Failed to rotate > > /var/log/journal/45c06c25e25f434195204efa939019ab/user-1000.journal: > > Read-only file system > > [ 44.509540] systemd-journald[416]: Failed to write entry (23 items, > > 705 bytes) despite vacuuming, ignoring: Bad message > > # ... then a bunch of these failed journal attempts (of note: > > /var/log/journal was one of the bad inodes from btrfs check > > previously) > > > > Kindly let me know what you would recommend. I'm sadly back to an > > unusable system vs. a complaining/worrisome one. This is similar to > > the behavior I had with the m2.sata nvme drive in my original > > experience. After trying all of --repair, --init-csum-tree, and > > --init-extent-tree, I couldn't boot anymore. After my dm-crypt > > password at boot, I just saw a bunch of [FAILED] in the text splash > > output. Hoping to not repeat that with this drive. > > > > Thanks, > > John > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 8, 2020 at 1:29 AM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx > > <mailto:quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2020/2/8 下午12:48, John Hendy wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 7, 2020 at 5:42 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx > > <mailto:quwenruo.btrfs@xxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On 2020/2/8 上午1:52, John Hendy wrote: > > > >>> Greetings, > > > >>> > > > >>> I'm resending, as this isn't showing in the archives. Perhaps > > it was > > > >>> the attachments, which I've converted to pastebin links. > > > >>> > > > >>> As an update, I'm now running off of a different drive (ssd, > > not the > > > >>> nvme) and I got the error again! I'm now inclined to think > > this might > > > >>> not be hardware after all, but something related to my setup > > or a bug > > > >>> with chromium. > > > >>> > > > >>> After a reboot, chromium wouldn't start for me and demsg showed > > > >>> similar parent transid/csum errors to my original post below. > > I used > > > >>> btrfs-inspect-internal to find the inode traced to > > > >>> ~/.config/chromium/History. I deleted that, and got a new set of > > > >>> errors tracing to ~/.config/chromium/Cookies. After I deleted > > that and > > > >>> tried starting chromium, I found that my btrfs /home/jwhendy > > pool was > > > >>> mounted ro just like the original problem below. > > > >>> > > > >>> dmesg after trying to start chromium: > > > >>> - https://pastebin.com/CsCEQMJa > > > >> > > > >> So far, it's only transid bug in your csum tree. > > > >> > > > >> And two backref mismatch in data backref. > > > >> > > > >> In theory, you can fix your problem by `btrfs check --repair > > > >> --init-csum-tree`. > > > >> > > > > > > > > Now that I might be narrowing in on offending files, I'll wait > > to see > > > > what you think from my last response to Chris. I did try the above > > > > when I first ran into this: > > > > - > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CA+M2ft8FpjdDQ7=XwMdYQazhyB95aha_D4WU_n15M59QrimrRg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > > > > > That RO is caused by the missing data backref. > > > > > > Which can be fixed by btrfs check --repair. > > > > > > Then you should be able to delete offending files them. (Or the whole > > > chromium cache, and switch to firefox if you wish :P ) > > > > > > But also please keep in mind that, the transid mismatch looks > > happen in > > > your csum tree, which means your csum tree is no longer reliable, and > > > may cause -EIO reading unrelated files. > > > > > > Thus it's recommended to re-fill the csum tree by --init-csum-tree. > > > > > > It can be done altogether by --repair --init-csum-tree, but to be > > safe, > > > please run --repair only first, then make sure btrfs check reports no > > > error after that. Then go --init-csum-tree. > > > > > > > > > > >> But I'm more interesting in how this happened. > > > > > > > > Me too :) > > > > > > > >> Have your every experienced any power loss for your NVME drive? > > > >> I'm not say btrfs is unsafe against power loss, all fs should > > be safe > > > >> against power loss, I'm just curious about if mount time log > > replay is > > > >> involved, or just regular internal log replay. > > > >> > > > >> From your smartctl, the drive experienced 61 unsafe shutdown > > with 2144 > > > >> power cycles. > > > > > > > > Uhhh, hell yes, sadly. I'm a dummy running i3 and every time I get > > > > caught off gaurd by low battery and instant power-off, I kick myself > > > > and mean to set up a script to force poweroff before that > > happens. So, > > > > indeed, I've lost power a ton. Surprised it was 61 times, but maybe > > > > not over ~2 years. And actually, I mis-stated the age. I haven't > > > > *booted* from this drive in almost 2yrs. It's a corporate laptop, > > > > issued every 3, so the ssd drive is more like 5 years old. > > > > > > > >> Not sure if it's related. > > > >> > > > >> Another interesting point is, did you remember what's the > > oldest kernel > > > >> running on this fs? v5.4 or v5.5? > > > > > > > > Hard to say, but arch linux maintains a package archive. The nvme > > > > drive is from ~May 2018. The archives only go back to Jan 2019 > > and the > > > > kernel/btrfs-progs was at 4.20 then: > > > > - https://archive.archlinux.org/packages/l/linux/ > > > > > > There is a known bug in v5.2.0~v5.2.14 (fixed in v5.2.15), which could > > > cause metadata corruption. And the symptom is transid error, which > > also > > > matches your problem. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Qu > > > > > > > > > > > Searching my Amazon orders, the SSD was in the 2015 time frame, > > so the > > > > kernel version would have been even older. > > > > > > > > Thanks for your input, > > > > John > > > > > > > >> > > > >> Thanks, > > > >> Qu > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for any pointers, as it would now seem that my purchase > > of a > > > >>> new m2.sata may not buy my way out of this problem! While I didn't > > > >>> want to reinstall, at least new hardware is a simple fix. Now I'm > > > >>> worried there is a deeper issue bound to recur :( > > > >>> > > > >>> Best regards, > > > >>> John > > > >>> > > > >>> On Wed, Feb 5, 2020 at 10:01 AM John Hendy <jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx > > <mailto:jw.hendy@xxxxxxxxx>> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Greetings, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I've had this issue occur twice, once ~1mo ago and once a > > couple of > > > >>>> weeks ago. Chromium suddenly quit on me, and when trying to > > start it > > > >>>> again, it complained about a lock file in ~. I tried to delete it > > > >>>> manually and was informed I was on a read-only fs! I ended up > > biting > > > >>>> the bullet and re-installing linux due to the number of dead end > > > >>>> threads and slow response rates on diagnosing these issues, > > and the > > > >>>> issue occurred again shortly after. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> $ uname -a > > > >>>> Linux whammy 5.5.1-arch1-1 #1 SMP PREEMPT Sat, 01 Feb 2020 > > 16:38:40 > > > >>>> +0000 x86_64 GNU/Linux > > > >>>> > > > >>>> $ btrfs --version > > > >>>> btrfs-progs v5.4 > > > >>>> > > > >>>> $ btrfs fi df /mnt/misc/ # full device; normally would be > > mounting a subvol on / > > > >>>> Data, single: total=114.01GiB, used=80.88GiB > > > >>>> System, single: total=32.00MiB, used=16.00KiB > > > >>>> Metadata, single: total=2.01GiB, used=769.61MiB > > > >>>> GlobalReserve, single: total=140.73MiB, used=0.00B > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This is a single device, no RAID, not on a VM. HP Zbook 15. > > > >>>> nvme0n1 259:5 0 > > 232.9G 0 disk > > > >>>> ├─nvme0n1p1 259:6 0 > > 512M 0 > > > >>>> part (/boot/efi) > > > >>>> ├─nvme0n1p2 259:7 0 > > 1G 0 part (/boot) > > > >>>> └─nvme0n1p3 259:8 0 > > 231.4G 0 part (btrfs) > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have the following subvols: > > > >>>> arch: used for / when booting arch > > > >>>> jwhendy: used for /home/jwhendy on arch > > > >>>> vault: shared data between distros on /mnt/vault > > > >>>> bionic: root when booting ubuntu bionic > > > >>>> > > > >>>> nvme0n1p3 is encrypted with dm-crypt/LUKS. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> dmesg, smartctl, btrfs check, and btrfs dev stats attached. > > > >>> > > > >>> Edit: links now: > > > >>> - btrfs check: https://pastebin.com/nz6Bc145 > > > >>> - dmesg: https://pastebin.com/1GGpNiqk > > > >>> - smartctl: https://pastebin.com/ADtYqfrd > > > >>> > > > >>> btrfs dev stats (not worth a link): > > > >>> > > > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].write_io_errs 0 > > > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].read_io_errs 0 > > > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].flush_io_errs 0 > > > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].corruption_errs 0 > > > >>> [/dev/mapper/old].generation_errs 0 > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > >>>> If these are of interested, here are reddit threads where I > > posted the > > > >>>> issue and was referred here. > > > >>>> 1) > > https://www.reddit.com/r/btrfs/comments/ejqhyq/any_hope_of_recovering_from_various_errors_root/ > > > >>>> 2) > > https://www.reddit.com/r/btrfs/comments/erh0f6/second_time_btrfs_root_started_remounting_as_ro/ > > > >>>> > > > >>>> It has been suggested this is a hardware issue. I've already > > ordered a > > > >>>> replacement m2.sata, but for sanity it would be great to know > > > >>>> definitively this was the case. If anything stands out above that > > > >>>> could indicate I'm not setup properly re. btrfs, that would > > also be > > > >>>> fantastic so I don't repeat the issue! > > > >>>> > > > >>>> The only thing I've stumbled on is that I have been mounting with > > > >>>> rd.luks.options=discard and that manually running fstrim is > > preferred. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Many thanks for any input/suggestions, > > > >>>> John > > > >> > > > > > >
