| Message ID | 20140819221055.GI429@lenny.home.zabbo.net (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:10:55PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: > On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 02:44:34PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote: > > Hello list, > > > > I want to use an ARM kirkwood based NSA325v2 NAS (dubbed "Receiver") for > > receiving btrfs snapshots done on several hosts, e.g. a Core Duo laptop > > running kubuntu 14.04 LTS (dubbed "Source"), storing them on a 3TB WD > > red disk (having GPT label, partitions created with parted). > > > > But all the btrfs receive commands on 'Receiver' fail soon with e.g.: > > ERROR: writing to initrd.img-3.13.0-24-generic.original failed. File > > too large > > ... and that stops reception/snapshot creation. > > ... > > > Increasing the verbosity with "-v -v" for btrfs receive shows the > > following differences between receive operations on 'Receiver' and > > 'OtherHost', both of them using the identical inputfile > > /boot/.snapshot/20140816-1310-boot_kernel3.16.0.btrfs-send > > > > * the chown and chmod operations are different -> resulting in > > weird/wrong permissions and sizes on 'Receiver' side. > > * what's "stransid", this is the first line that differs > > This is interesting, thanks for going to the trouble to show those > diffs. > > That the commands and strings match up show us that the basic tlv header > chaining is working. But the u64 attribute values are sometimes messed > up. And messed up in a specific way. A variable number of low order > bytes are magically appearing. > > (gdb) print/x 11709972488 > $2 = 0x2b9f80008 > (gdb) print/x 178680 > $3 = 0x2b9f8 > > (gdb) print/x 588032 > $6 = 0x8f900 > (gdb) print/x 2297 > $7 = 0x8f9 > > Some light googling makes me think that the Marvell Kirkwood is not > friendly at all to unaligned accesses. ARM isn't in general -- it never has been, even 20 years ago in the ARM3 days when I was writing code in ARM assembler. We've been bitten by this before in btrfs (mkfs on ARM works, mounting it fails fast, because userspace has a trap to fix unaligned accesses, and the kernel doesn't). > The (biting tongue) send and receive code is playing some games with > casting aligned and unaligned pointers. Maybe that's upsetting the arm > toolchain/kirkwood. Almost certainly the toolchain isn't identifying the unaligned accesses, and thus building code that uses them causes stuff to break. There's a workaround for userspace that you can use to verify that this is indeed the problem: echo 2 >/proc/cpu/alignment will tell the kernel to fix up unaligned accesses initiated in userspace. It's a performance killer, but it should serve to identify whether the problem is actually this. Hugo. > Does this completely untested patch to btrfs-progs, > to be run on the receiver, do anything? > > - z > > diff --git a/send-stream.c b/send-stream.c > index 88e18e2..4f8dd83 100644 > --- a/send-stream.c > +++ b/send-stream.c > @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ out: > int __len; \ > TLV_GET(s, attr, (void**)&__tmp, &__len); \ > TLV_CHECK_LEN(sizeof(*__tmp), __len); \ > - *v = le##bits##_to_cpu(*__tmp); \ > + *v = get_unaligned_le##bits(__tmp); \ > } while (0) > > #define TLV_GET_U8(s, attr, v) TLV_GET_INT(s, attr, 8, v)
Thank you Hugo! Amazing. It almost work all the way, According to some tests I did, echo 2 >/proc/cpu/alignment does allow in fact btrfs receive to work in most cases. For the tests, a x86_64 for send, a armv5tel for receive and 2 subvolumes (one with just a few data and binary files and the other a full root partition) were used. The send blobs were md5sum and verified at receive side matched. The small blob was properly process by btrfs receive (file sha1s and metadata all matched). The big blob with the root partition did partially succeeded as it ended abruptly with ERROR: lsetxattr var/log/journal system.posix_acl_default=. failed. Operation not supported. I checked a few restored files and their sha1 and metadata matched. Daniel On 08/19/14 15:22, Hugo Mills wrote: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:10:55PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 02:44:34PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote: >>> Hello list, >>> >>> I want to use an ARM kirkwood based NSA325v2 NAS (dubbed "Receiver") for >>> receiving btrfs snapshots done on several hosts, e.g. a Core Duo laptop >>> running kubuntu 14.04 LTS (dubbed "Source"), storing them on a 3TB WD >>> red disk (having GPT label, partitions created with parted). >>> >>> But all the btrfs receive commands on 'Receiver' fail soon with e.g.: >>> ERROR: writing to initrd.img-3.13.0-24-generic.original failed. File >>> too large >>> ... and that stops reception/snapshot creation. >> >> ... >> >>> Increasing the verbosity with "-v -v" for btrfs receive shows the >>> following differences between receive operations on 'Receiver' and >>> 'OtherHost', both of them using the identical inputfile >>> /boot/.snapshot/20140816-1310-boot_kernel3.16.0.btrfs-send >>> >>> * the chown and chmod operations are different -> resulting in >>> weird/wrong permissions and sizes on 'Receiver' side. >>> * what's "stransid", this is the first line that differs >> >> This is interesting, thanks for going to the trouble to show those >> diffs. >> >> That the commands and strings match up show us that the basic tlv header >> chaining is working. But the u64 attribute values are sometimes messed >> up. And messed up in a specific way. A variable number of low order >> bytes are magically appearing. >> >> (gdb) print/x 11709972488 >> $2 = 0x2b9f80008 >> (gdb) print/x 178680 >> $3 = 0x2b9f8 >> >> (gdb) print/x 588032 >> $6 = 0x8f900 >> (gdb) print/x 2297 >> $7 = 0x8f9 >> >> Some light googling makes me think that the Marvell Kirkwood is not >> friendly at all to unaligned accesses. > > ARM isn't in general -- it never has been, even 20 years ago in the > ARM3 days when I was writing code in ARM assembler. We've been bitten > by this before in btrfs (mkfs on ARM works, mounting it fails fast, > because userspace has a trap to fix unaligned accesses, and the kernel > doesn't). > >> The (biting tongue) send and receive code is playing some games with >> casting aligned and unaligned pointers. Maybe that's upsetting the arm >> toolchain/kirkwood. > > Almost certainly the toolchain isn't identifying the unaligned > accesses, and thus building code that uses them causes stuff to break. > > There's a workaround for userspace that you can use to verify that > this is indeed the problem: echo 2 >/proc/cpu/alignment will tell the > kernel to fix up unaligned accesses initiated in userspace. It's a > performance killer, but it should serve to identify whether the > problem is actually this. > > Hugo. > >> Does this completely untested patch to btrfs-progs, >> to be run on the receiver, do anything? >> >> - z >> >> diff --git a/send-stream.c b/send-stream.c >> index 88e18e2..4f8dd83 100644 >> --- a/send-stream.c >> +++ b/send-stream.c >> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ out: >> int __len; \ >> TLV_GET(s, attr, (void**)&__tmp, &__len); \ >> TLV_CHECK_LEN(sizeof(*__tmp), __len); \ >> - *v = le##bits##_to_cpu(*__tmp); \ >> + *v = get_unaligned_le##bits(__tmp); \ >> } while (0) >> >> #define TLV_GET_U8(s, attr, v) TLV_GET_INT(s, attr, 8, v) > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hello Hugo and Zach! a big thanks to both of you! Both Hugo's userspace workaround and Zach's patch work fine for me - the /boot snapshot can be restored completely as expected :-) Will now try with the bigger snapshots ... Thanks again, Klaus Am 2014-08-20 um 00:22 schrieb Hugo Mills: > On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 03:10:55PM -0700, Zach Brown wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 02:44:34PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote: >>> Hello list, >>> >>> I want to use an ARM kirkwood based NSA325v2 NAS (dubbed >>> "Receiver") for receiving btrfs snapshots done on several >>> hosts, e.g. a Core Duo laptop running kubuntu 14.04 LTS >>> (dubbed "Source"), storing them on a 3TB WD red disk (having >>> GPT label, partitions created with parted). >>> >>> But all the btrfs receive commands on 'Receiver' fail soon >>> with e.g.: ERROR: writing to >>> initrd.img-3.13.0-24-generic.original failed. File too large >>> ... and that stops reception/snapshot creation. >> >> ... >> >>> Increasing the verbosity with "-v -v" for btrfs receive shows >>> the following differences between receive operations on >>> 'Receiver' and 'OtherHost', both of them using the identical >>> inputfile >>> /boot/.snapshot/20140816-1310-boot_kernel3.16.0.btrfs-send >>> >>> * the chown and chmod operations are different -> resulting in >>> weird/wrong permissions and sizes on 'Receiver' side. * >>> what's "stransid", this is the first line that differs >> >> This is interesting, thanks for going to the trouble to show >> those diffs. >> >> That the commands and strings match up show us that the basic >> tlv header chaining is working. But the u64 attribute values >> are sometimes messed up. And messed up in a specific way. A >> variable number of low order bytes are magically appearing. >> >> (gdb) print/x 11709972488 $2 = 0x2b9f80008 (gdb) print/x 178680 >> $3 = 0x2b9f8 >> >> (gdb) print/x 588032 $6 = 0x8f900 (gdb) print/x 2297 $7 = 0x8f9 >> >> Some light googling makes me think that the Marvell Kirkwood is >> not friendly at all to unaligned accesses. > > ARM isn't in general -- it never has been, even 20 years ago in the > ARM3 days when I was writing code in ARM assembler. We've been > bitten by this before in btrfs (mkfs on ARM works, mounting it > fails fast, because userspace has a trap to fix unaligned > accesses, and the kernel doesn't). > >> The (biting tongue) send and receive code is playing some games >> with casting aligned and unaligned pointers. Maybe that's >> upsetting the arm toolchain/kirkwood. > > Almost certainly the toolchain isn't identifying the unaligned > accesses, and thus building code that uses them causes stuff to > break. > > There's a workaround for userspace that you can use to verify that > this is indeed the problem: echo 2 >/proc/cpu/alignment will tell > the kernel to fix up unaligned accesses initiated in userspace. > It's a performance killer, but it should serve to identify whether > the problem is actually this. > > Hugo. > >> Does this completely untested patch to btrfs-progs, to be run on >> the receiver, do anything? >> >> - z >> >> diff --git a/send-stream.c b/send-stream.c index >> 88e18e2..4f8dd83 100644 --- a/send-stream.c +++ b/send-stream.c >> @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ out: int __len; \ TLV_GET(s, attr, >> (void**)&__tmp, &__len); \ TLV_CHECK_LEN(sizeof(*__tmp), __len); >> \ - *v = le##bits##_to_cpu(*__tmp); \ + >> *v = get_unaligned_le##bits(__tmp); \ } while (0) >> >> #define TLV_GET_U8(s, attr, v) TLV_GET_INT(s, attr, 8, v) >
On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 09:03:16PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote: > Hello Hugo and Zach! > > a big thanks to both of you! > > Both Hugo's userspace workaround and > Zach's patch work fine for me - the /boot snapshot can be restored > completely as expected :-) Cool, glad to hear it. I sent a proper patch to the list and added your reported-by and tested-by, hope that's OK. - z -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Hello Zach! Am 2014-08-21 um 23:25 schrieb Zach Brown: > On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 09:03:16PM +0200, Klaus Holler wrote: >> Hello Hugo and Zach! >> >> a big thanks to both of you! >> >> Both Hugo's userspace workaround and >> Zach's patch work fine for me - the /boot snapshot can be restored >> completely as expected :-) > > Cool, glad to hear it. I sent a proper patch to the list and added your > reported-by and tested-by, hope that's OK. yes, sure that's ok. BTW: The first of the bigger snapshots also did restore fine over night. Second one still running ... Kind regards, Klaus
diff --git a/send-stream.c b/send-stream.c index 88e18e2..4f8dd83 100644 --- a/send-stream.c +++ b/send-stream.c @@ -204,7 +204,7 @@ out: int __len; \ TLV_GET(s, attr, (void**)&__tmp, &__len); \ TLV_CHECK_LEN(sizeof(*__tmp), __len); \ - *v = le##bits##_to_cpu(*__tmp); \ + *v = get_unaligned_le##bits(__tmp); \ } while (0) #define TLV_GET_U8(s, attr, v) TLV_GET_INT(s, attr, 8, v)