Message-ID: <1740a49b-a10d-1bd3-a070-d76e9eb62fb2@huawei.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Apr 2020 20:01:53 +0800
From:   "zhangyi (F)" <yi.zhang@...wei.com>
To:     Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>
CC:     yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>, <tytso@....edu>, <jack@...e.cz>,
        <dmonakhov@...il.com>, <adilger@...ger.ca>, <bob.liu@...cle.com>,
        <wshilong@....com>, <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [QUESTION] BUG_ON in ext4_mb_simple_scan_group

On 2020/4/17 11:26, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
> Hello Yi,
> 
> On 4/17/20 7:36 AM, zhangyi (F) wrote:
>> Hi, Ritesh
>>
>> On 2020/4/17 2:33, Ritesh Harjani wrote:
>>> Hello Kun,
>>>
>>> On 4/16/20 7:49 PM, yangerkun wrote:
>>>> Nowadays, we trigger the a bug that has been reported before[1](trigger the bug with read block bitmap error before). After search the patch,
>>>> I found some related patch which has not been included in our kernel.
>>>>
>>>> eb5760863fc2 ext4: mark block bitmap corrupted when found instead of BUGON
>>>> 736dedbb1a7d ext4: mark block bitmap corrupted when found
>>>> 206f6d552d0c ext4: mark inode bitmap corrupted when found
>>>> db79e6d1fb1f ext4: add new ext4_mark_group_bitmap_corrupted() helper
>>>> 0db9fdeb347c ext4: fix wrong return value in ext4_read_inode_bitmap()
>>>
>>> I see that you anyways have figured all these patches out.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Maybe this patch can fix the problem, but I am a little confused with
>>>> the explain from Ted described in the mail:
>>>>
>>>>   > What probably happened is that the page containing actual allocation
>>>>   > bitmap was pushed out of memory due to memory pressure.  However, the
>>>>   > buddy bitmap was still cached in memory.  That's actually quite
>>>>   > possible since the buddy bitmap will often be referenced more
>>>>   > frequently than the allocation bitmap (for example, while searching
>>>>   > for free space of a specific size, and then having that block group
>>>>   > skipped when it's not available).
>>>>
>>>>   > Since there was an I/O error reading the allocation bitmap, the buffer
>>>>   > is not valid.  So it's not surprising that the BUG_ON(k >= max) is
>>>>   > getting triggered.
>>>
>>> @Others, please correct me if I am wrong here.
>>>
>>> So just as a small summary. Ext4 maintains an inode (we call it as
>>> buddy cache inode which is sbi->s_buddy_cache) which stores the block
>>> bitmap and buddy information for every block group. So we require 2
>>> blocks for every block group to store both of this info in it.
>>>
>>> So what generally happens is whenever there is a request to block
>>> allocation, this(buddy and block bitmap information is loaded from the
>>> disk into the page cache.
>>>
>>> When someone does the block allocation these pages get loaded into the
>>> page cache. And it will be there until these pages are getting heavily
>>> used (that's coz of page eviction algo in mm).
>>> But in case when the memory pressure is high, these pages may get
>>> written out and eventually getting evicted from the page cache.
>>> Now if any of this page is not present in the page cache we go and try
>>> to read it from the disk. (I think that's the job of
>>> ext4_mb_load_buddy_gfp()).
>>>
>>> So let's say while reading this page from disk we get an I/O error,
>>> so this means, as Ted explained, that the buffer which was not properly
>>> read and hence it is not uptodate (and so we also don't set buffer
>>> verified bit).
>>> And in that case we should mark that block group corrupted. So that next
>>> time, ext4_mb_good_group() does not allow us to do allocation from that
>>> block group. I think some of the patches which you pointed add the logic
>>> into the mballoc. So that we don't hit that bug_on().
>>>
>>> {...
>>> [Addition info - not related to your issue though]
>>> So this could also be an e.g. where the grp->bb_free may not be uptodate
>>> for a block group of which bitmap was not properly loaded.
>>> ...}
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (Our machine: x86, 4K page size, 4K block size)
>>>>
>>>> After check the related code, we found that once we get a IO error from ext4_wait_block_bitmap, ext4_mb_init_cache will return directly with a error number, so the latter ext4_mb_simple_scan_group may never been called! So any other scene will trigger this BUG_ON?
>>>
>>> Sorry that's not what I see in latest upstream kernel.
>>> I am not sure which kernel version you are checking this on.
>>> Check the latest upstream kernel and compare with it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for your reply.
>>
>> We check the upstream kernel 5.7-rc1, on our machine which has 4K page size
>> and 4K block size, if the ext4_wait_block_bitmap() invoked from
>> ext4_mb_init_cache() return -EIO, the 'err' variable will be set and the
>> subsequent loop will be jumped out due to '!buffer_verified[group - first_group]
>> && blocks_per_page == 1', so the -EIO error number will return by
>> ext4_mb_load_buddy() and there is no chance to invoke ext4_mb_simple_scan_group()
>> and trigger BUG_ON().
>>
>> static int ext4_mb_init_cache(struct page *page, char *incore, gfp_t gfp)
>> {
>> ...
>>          /* wait for I/O completion */
>>          for (i = 0, group = first_group; i < groups_per_page; i++, group++) {
>> ...
>>                  err2 = ext4_wait_block_bitmap(sb, group, bh[i]);
>>                  if (!err)
>>                          err = err2;     <------ set -EIO here
>>          }
>>
>>          first_block = page->index * blocks_per_page;
>>          for (i = 0; i < blocks_per_page; i++) {
>>                  group = (first_block + i) >> 1;
>> ...
>>                  if (!buffer_verified(bh[group - first_group]))
>>                          /* Skip faulty bitmaps */
>>                          continue;<----- blocks_per_page == 1, we jump out here
>>                  err = 0;  <---- never excute
>> ...
>> out:
>> ...
>>          return err;
>> }
>>
>> static noinline_for_stack int
>> ext4_mb_regular_allocator(struct ext4_allocation_context *ac)
>> {
>> ...
>>                         err = ext4_mb_load_buddy(sb, group, &e4b);
>>                         if (err)
>>                                 goto out;   <--- return here
>> ...
>>                         if (cr == 0)
>>                                 ext4_mb_simple_scan_group(ac, &e4b); <--- never invoke
>> ...
>> }
> 
> Yup, I guess what you mentioned is correct. But I noted one other thing.
> Check if below could lead to this.
> 
> static int ext4_mb_init_cache(struct page *page, char *incore, gfp_t gfp)
> {
> <...>
>     first_group = page->index * blocks_per_page / 2;
> 
>     /* read all groups the page covers into the cache */
>     for (i = 0, group = first_group; i < groups_per_page; i++, group++) {
>         if (group >= ngroups)
>             break;
> 
>         grinfo = ext4_get_group_info(sb, group);
>         /*
>          * If page is uptodate then we came here after online resize
>          * which added some new uninitialized group info structs, so
>          * we must skip all initialized uptodate buddies on the page,
>          * which may be currently in use by an allocating task.
>          */
>         if (PageUptodate(page) && !EXT4_MB_GRP_NEED_INIT(grinfo)) {
>             bh[i] = NULL;
>             continue;
>         }
>         bh[i] = ext4_read_block_bitmap_nowait(sb, group);
>         if (IS_ERR(bh[i])) {
>             err = PTR_ERR(bh[i]);
>             bh[i] = NULL;
>             goto out;
>         }
>         mb_debug(1, "read bitmap for group %u\n", group);
>     }
> 
>     /* wait for I/O completion */
>     for (i = 0, group = first_group; i < groups_per_page; i++, group++) {
>         int err2;
> 
>         if (!bh[i])
>             continue;
>         err2 = ext4_wait_block_bitmap(sb, group, bh[i]);
>         if (!err)
>             err = err2;
>     }
> 
>     first_block = page->index * blocks_per_page;
>     for (i = 0; i < blocks_per_page; i++) {
> <...>
>         if (!buffer_verified(bh[group - first_group]))
>             /* Skip faulty bitmaps */
>             continue;
>         err = 0;            ====> yes this was not set I think.
> 
> <...>
>     }
>     SetPageUptodate(page);       ========> But it seems we are still setting uptodate bit on page.
> 
> out:
>     if (bh) {
>         for (i = 0; i < groups_per_page; i++)
>             brelse(bh[i]);
>         if (bh != &bhs)
>             kfree(bh);
>     }
>     return err;
> }
> 
> 
> ext4_mb_load_buddy_gfp() {
> <...>
> 
> 
>     /* we could use find_or_create_page(), but it locks page
>      * what we'd like to avoid in fast path ... */
>     page = find_get_page_flags(inode->i_mapping, pnum, FGP_ACCESSED);
>     if (page == NULL || !PageUptodate(page)) {      ====> next time we won't go in this if condition. (since PageUptodate is already set)
> <...>
>         page = find_or_create_page(inode->i_mapping, pnum, gfp);
>         if (page) {
>             BUG_ON(page->mapping != inode->i_mapping);
>             if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
>                 ret = ext4_mb_init_cache(page, NULL, gfp);
> <...>
>             }
>             unlock_page(page);
>         }
>     }
>     if (page == NULL) {
>         ret = -ENOMEM;
>         goto err;
>     }
>     if (!PageUptodate(page)) {
>         ret = -EIO;
>         goto err;
>     }
> <...>
> }
> 
> 
> So maybe since the PageUptodate bit was set on page previously as
> highlighted above. Next time when there will be any allocation request,
> we won't read those pages again from disk (thinking that it's uptodate.
> And hence may encounter that BUG. Thoughts?
> 
Indeed，it looks correct, that's match our error log:

[409589.665086] EXT4-fs error (device sda5): ext4_wait_block_bitmap:524: comm Kbaselogd: Cannot read block bitmap - block_group = 529, block_bitmap = 17334272
[409590.664990] EXT4-fs error (device sda5): ext4_wait_block_bitmap:524: comm Kbaselogd: Cannot read block bitmap - block_group = 529, block_bitmap = 17334272

The first one is triggered while building block bitmap page when first
invoking ext4_mb_load_buddy(), the second one is triggered while building
buddy bitmap bage at second time. After these two failure, both bitmap
pages are inconsistency with ext4_group_info:bb_counters, and finally
encounter the BUG_ON at third time.

> If above is true, then may be we should not call
> "SetPageUptodate(page)", in case of an error reading block bitmap?
> Thoughts?
> 
Yeah, it's better to set page uptodate only if all block bitmap buffers
are uptodate represent by this page.

Thanks,
Yi.

> One other thing from [1]. I guess it doesn't have a full kernel log.
> So maybe there were some previous I/O errors as well and it failed
> to update the superblock buffer_head even before. So something
> may have messed up long before and it slipped through all the cracks
> until it crashed in mballoc.
> 
> 
> -ritesh
> 
> 
>>
>> We also find that ext4_group_info:bb_counters and the corresponding buddy bit map
>> are updated or initialized at the same time, so even if we encounter page miss and
>> forget to mark that block group corrupted due to IO failure, it seems that it also
>> could not trigger this inconsistency. Am I missing something ?
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Yi.
>>
>>>> -----
>>>> [1] https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg60329.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>
> 
> 
> .

Powered by blists - more mailing lists