| Message ID | 1540882702-21104-1-git-send-email-robbieko@synology.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | Btrfs: incremental send, fix infinite loop when apply children dir moves | expand |
On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote: > > From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > > In apply_children_dir_moves, we first create an empty list (stack), > then we get an entry from pending_dir_moves and add it to the stack, > but we didn't delete the entry from rb_tree. > > So, in add_pending_dir_move, we create a new entry and then use the > parent_ino in the current rb_tree to find the corresponding entry, > and if so, add the new entry to the corresponding list. > > However, the entry may have been added to the stack, causing new > entries to be added to the stack as well. > > Finally, each time we take the first entry from the stack and start > processing, it ends up with an infinite loop. > > Fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves, > avoid add new pending_dir_move to error list. I can't parse that explanation. Can you give a concrete example (reproducer) or did this came out of thin air? Thanks. > > Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/send.c | 11 ++++++++--- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > index 094cc144..5be83b5 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > @@ -3340,7 +3340,8 @@ static void free_pending_move(struct send_ctx *sctx, struct pending_dir_move *m) > kfree(m); > } > > -static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move *moves, > +static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx, > + struct pending_dir_move *moves, > struct list_head *stack) > { > if (list_empty(&moves->list)) { > @@ -3351,6 +3352,10 @@ static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move *moves, > list_add_tail(&moves->list, stack); > list_splice_tail(&list, stack); > } > + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&moves->node)) { > + rb_erase(&moves->node, &sctx->pending_dir_moves); > + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&moves->node); > + } > } > > static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) > @@ -3365,7 +3370,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) > return 0; > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&stack); > - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); > + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); > > while (!list_empty(&stack)) { > pm = list_first_entry(&stack, struct pending_dir_move, list); > @@ -3376,7 +3381,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) > goto out; > pm = get_pending_dir_moves(sctx, parent_ino); > if (pm) > - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); > + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); > } > return 0; > > -- > 1.9.1 >
On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:10 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote: > > Filipe Manana 於 2018-10-30 19:36 寫到: > > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote: > >> > >> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > >> > >> In apply_children_dir_moves, we first create an empty list (stack), > >> then we get an entry from pending_dir_moves and add it to the stack, > >> but we didn't delete the entry from rb_tree. > >> > >> So, in add_pending_dir_move, we create a new entry and then use the > >> parent_ino in the current rb_tree to find the corresponding entry, > >> and if so, add the new entry to the corresponding list. > >> > >> However, the entry may have been added to the stack, causing new > >> entries to be added to the stack as well. > >> > >> Finally, each time we take the first entry from the stack and start > >> processing, it ends up with an infinite loop. > >> > >> Fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves, > >> avoid add new pending_dir_move to error list. > > > > I can't parse that explanation. > > Can you give a concrete example (reproducer) or did this came out of > > thin air? > > > > Thanks. > > > > I am sorry that I replied so late. > > I have no way to give a simple example. > But I can provide a btrfs image file > You can restore the Image via btrfs-image > Then directly command "btrfs send -e -p parent send -f dump_file" > Infinite loop will occur. > I use ubuntu 16.04, kernel 4.15.0.36-generic can be stable reproduce You have been occasionally submitting fixes for send/receive for a few years now, and you know already that I always ask for a changelog that describes well the problem and an example/reproducer. Why did you do this? What I can read from your answer is that you were too lazy to extract a reproducer from that image. Just made some change that fixes the infinite loop and because it apparently works you're done with it, Without an example at least, I don't think you or anyone can fully understand the problem, and if what you have (despite somewhat making theoretical sense) is really a good solution or just a workaround for the cause of the problem - after all if you can't give an example, you can't explain how in practice such loop of dependencies between directories happens. This, as with most send/receive problems, is a pure sequential and deterministic problem so there's really no excuse for not getting a reproducer. Without an example, an explanation how it happens in the real world, does one know that your change is fixing the problem is the right place and not introducing other problems? Like the receiver not getting some changes (missing directories, files, or renames, etc). Tests are not just to prove a change is correct, they exist to catch and prevent regressions in the future too. You can do better than that. > > Image file, please refer to the attachment. > > Thanks. > > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > >> --- > >> fs/btrfs/send.c | 11 ++++++++--- > >> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >> index 094cc144..5be83b5 100644 > >> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > >> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >> @@ -3340,7 +3340,8 @@ static void free_pending_move(struct send_ctx > >> *sctx, struct pending_dir_move *m) > >> kfree(m); > >> } > >> > >> -static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move *moves, > >> +static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx, > >> + struct pending_dir_move *moves, > >> struct list_head *stack) > >> { > >> if (list_empty(&moves->list)) { > >> @@ -3351,6 +3352,10 @@ static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct > >> pending_dir_move *moves, > >> list_add_tail(&moves->list, stack); > >> list_splice_tail(&list, stack); > >> } > >> + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&moves->node)) { > >> + rb_erase(&moves->node, &sctx->pending_dir_moves); > >> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&moves->node); > >> + } > >> } > >> > >> static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) > >> @@ -3365,7 +3370,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct > >> send_ctx *sctx) > >> return 0; > >> > >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&stack); > >> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); > >> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); > >> > >> while (!list_empty(&stack)) { > >> pm = list_first_entry(&stack, struct pending_dir_move, > >> list); > >> @@ -3376,7 +3381,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct > >> send_ctx *sctx) > >> goto out; > >> pm = get_pending_dir_moves(sctx, parent_ino); > >> if (pm) > >> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); > >> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); > >> } > >> return 0; > >> > >> -- > >> 1.9.1 > >>
On 2018/11/5 下午7:11, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:10 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote: >> >> Filipe Manana 於 2018-10-30 19:36 寫到: >>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> >>>> >>>> In apply_children_dir_moves, we first create an empty list (stack), >>>> then we get an entry from pending_dir_moves and add it to the stack, >>>> but we didn't delete the entry from rb_tree. >>>> >>>> So, in add_pending_dir_move, we create a new entry and then use the >>>> parent_ino in the current rb_tree to find the corresponding entry, >>>> and if so, add the new entry to the corresponding list. >>>> >>>> However, the entry may have been added to the stack, causing new >>>> entries to be added to the stack as well. I'm not a send guy, so I can totally be wrong, but that 'may' word seems to hide the demon. >>>> >>>> Finally, each time we take the first entry from the stack and start >>>> processing, it ends up with an infinite loop. >>>> >>>> Fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves, >>>> avoid add new pending_dir_move to error list. >>> >>> I can't parse that explanation. >>> Can you give a concrete example (reproducer) or did this came out of >>> thin air? >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >> >> I am sorry that I replied so late. >> >> I have no way to give a simple example. >> But I can provide a btrfs image file >> You can restore the Image via btrfs-image >> Then directly command "btrfs send -e -p parent send -f dump_file" According to the name, it doesn't look like a real world case, but some more or less manually crafted image. It shouldn't be that hard to describe the root cause in details if it's crafted. Or, if it's a image caused by some stress test, then I really hope you could locate the direct and root cause, or at least minimize the image. The extra noise will really take a lot of time from reviewer. IMHO, it shouldn't be that hard to locate the key/key range that send loops, with that located it should provide some clue to further pin down the root cause. I totally understand that everyone has their own work, if you can't really spare time for this, would you please upload the image to public for anyone (me for example) to look into the case? Thanks, Qu >> Infinite loop will occur. >> I use ubuntu 16.04, kernel 4.15.0.36-generic can be stable reproduce > > You have been occasionally submitting fixes for send/receive for a few > years now, and you know already > that I always ask for a changelog that describes well the problem and > an example/reproducer. > > Why did you do this? > > What I can read from your answer is that you were too lazy to extract > a reproducer from that image. > Just made some change that fixes the infinite loop and because it > apparently works you're done with it, > Without an example at least, I don't think you or anyone can fully > understand the problem, and if what > you have (despite somewhat making theoretical sense) is really a good > solution or just a workaround for > the cause of the problem - after all if you can't give an example, you > can't explain how in practice such loop > of dependencies between directories happens. This, as with most > send/receive problems, is a pure sequential > and deterministic problem so there's really no excuse for not getting > a reproducer. > > Without an example, an explanation how it happens in the real world, > does one know that your change is > fixing the problem is the right place and not introducing other > problems? Like the receiver not getting some > changes (missing directories, files, or renames, etc). > > Tests are not just to prove a change is correct, they exist to catch > and prevent regressions in the future too. > > You can do better than that. > >> >> Image file, please refer to the attachment. >> >> Thanks. >> >> >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> >>>> --- >>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 11 ++++++++--- >>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>> index 094cc144..5be83b5 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>> @@ -3340,7 +3340,8 @@ static void free_pending_move(struct send_ctx >>>> *sctx, struct pending_dir_move *m) >>>> kfree(m); >>>> } >>>> >>>> -static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move *moves, >>>> +static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>>> + struct pending_dir_move *moves, >>>> struct list_head *stack) >>>> { >>>> if (list_empty(&moves->list)) { >>>> @@ -3351,6 +3352,10 @@ static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct >>>> pending_dir_move *moves, >>>> list_add_tail(&moves->list, stack); >>>> list_splice_tail(&list, stack); >>>> } >>>> + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&moves->node)) { >>>> + rb_erase(&moves->node, &sctx->pending_dir_moves); >>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&moves->node); >>>> + } >>>> } >>>> >>>> static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) >>>> @@ -3365,7 +3370,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct >>>> send_ctx *sctx) >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&stack); >>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); >>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); >>>> >>>> while (!list_empty(&stack)) { >>>> pm = list_first_entry(&stack, struct pending_dir_move, >>>> list); >>>> @@ -3376,7 +3381,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct >>>> send_ctx *sctx) >>>> goto out; >>>> pm = get_pending_dir_moves(sctx, parent_ino); >>>> if (pm) >>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); >>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); >>>> } >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> -- >>>> 1.9.1 >>>> > > >
Hi,
I can reproduce the infinite loop, the following will describe the
reason and example.
Example:
tree --inodes parent/ send/
parent/
`-- [ 261] 261
`-- [ 271] 271
`-- [ 266] 266
|-- [ 259] 259
|-- [ 260] 260
| `-- [ 267] 267
|-- [ 264] 264
| `-- [ 258] 258
| `-- [ 257] 257
|-- [ 265] 265
|-- [ 268] 268
|-- [ 269] 269
| `-- [ 262] 262
|-- [ 270] 270
|-- [ 272] 272
| |-- [ 263] 263
| `-- [ 275] 275
`-- [ 274] 274
`-- [ 273] 273
send/
`-- [ 275] 275
`-- [ 274] 274
`-- [ 273] 273
`-- [ 262] 262
`-- [ 269] 269
`-- [ 258] 258
`-- [ 271] 271
`-- [ 268] 268
`-- [ 267] 267
`-- [ 270] 270
|-- [ 259] 259
| `-- [ 265] 265
`-- [ 272] 272
`-- [ 257] 257
|-- [ 260] 260
`-- [ 264] 264
`-- [ 263] 263
`-- [ 261]
261
`-- [
266] 266
1. While process inode 257, we delay its rename operation because inode
272
has not been renamed (since 272 > 257, that is, beyond the current
progress).
2. And so on (inode 258-274), we can get a bunch of waiting waiting
relationships
257 -> (wait for) 272
258 -> 269
259 -> 270
260 -> 272
261 -> 263
262 -> 274
263 -> 264
264 -> 257
265 -> 270
266 -> 263
267 -> 268
268 -> 271
269 -> 262
270 -> 271
271 -> 258
272 -> 274
274 -> 275
3. While processing inode 275, we rename ./261/271/272/275 to ./275,
and then now we start processing the waiting subdirectories in
apply_children_dir_moves.
4. We first initialize the stack into an empty list, and then we add 274
to the stack
because 274 is waiting for 275 to complete.
Every time we take the first object in the stack to process it.
5. So we can observe the change in object in the stack.
loop:
round 1. 274
2. 262 -> 272
3. 272 -> 269
4. 269 -> 257 -> 260
5. 257 -> 260 -> 258
6. 260 -> 258 -> 264
7. 258 -> 264
8. 264 -> 271
9. 271 -> 263
10. 263 -> 268 -> 270
11. 268 -> 270 -> 261 -> 266
12. 270 -> 261 -> 266 -> 267
13. 261 -> 266 -> 267 -> 259 -> 265 (since 270 path loop, so
we add 270 waiting for 267)
14. 266 -> 267 -> 259 -> 265
15. 267 -> 266 -> 259 -> 265 (since 266 path loop, so we add
266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack)
16. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270
17. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we add
266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack)
18. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we add
266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack)
19. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we add
266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack)
... infinite loop
6. In round 13, we processing 270, we delayed the rename because 270 has
a path loop with 267,
and then we add 259, 265 to the stack, but we don't remove from
pending_dir_moves rb_tree.
7. In round 15, we processing 266, we delayed the rename because 266 has
a path loop with 270,
So we look for parent_ino equal to 270 from pending_dir_moves, and we
find ino 259
because it was not removed from pending_dir_moves.
Then we create a new pending_dir and join the ino 259, because the ino
259 is currently in the stack,
the new pending_dir ino 266 is also indirectly added to the stack,
placed between 267 and 259.
So we fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves,
avoid add new pending_dir_move to stack list.
Qu Wenruo 於 2018-11-05 22:35 寫到:
> On 2018/11/5 下午7:11, Filipe Manana wrote:
>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:10 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Filipe Manana 於 2018-10-30 19:36 寫到:
>>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com>
>>>>>
>>>>> In apply_children_dir_moves, we first create an empty list (stack),
>>>>> then we get an entry from pending_dir_moves and add it to the
>>>>> stack,
>>>>> but we didn't delete the entry from rb_tree.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, in add_pending_dir_move, we create a new entry and then use the
>>>>> parent_ino in the current rb_tree to find the corresponding entry,
>>>>> and if so, add the new entry to the corresponding list.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, the entry may have been added to the stack, causing new
>>>>> entries to be added to the stack as well.
>
> I'm not a send guy, so I can totally be wrong, but that 'may' word
> seems
> to hide the demon.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, each time we take the first entry from the stack and start
>>>>> processing, it ends up with an infinite loop.
>>>>>
>>>>> Fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves,
>>>>> avoid add new pending_dir_move to error list.
>>>>
>>>> I can't parse that explanation.
>>>> Can you give a concrete example (reproducer) or did this came out of
>>>> thin air?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am sorry that I replied so late.
>>>
>>> I have no way to give a simple example.
>>> But I can provide a btrfs image file
>>> You can restore the Image via btrfs-image
>>> Then directly command "btrfs send -e -p parent send -f dump_file"
>
> According to the name, it doesn't look like a real world case, but some
> more or less manually crafted image.
> It shouldn't be that hard to describe the root cause in details if it's
> crafted.
>
> Or, if it's a image caused by some stress test, then I really hope you
> could locate the direct and root cause, or at least minimize the image.
> The extra noise will really take a lot of time from reviewer.
>
> IMHO, it shouldn't be that hard to locate the key/key range that send
> loops, with that located it should provide some clue to further pin
> down
> the root cause.
>
> I totally understand that everyone has their own work, if you can't
> really spare time for this, would you please upload the image to public
> for anyone (me for example) to look into the case?
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
>>> Infinite loop will occur.
>>> I use ubuntu 16.04, kernel 4.15.0.36-generic can be stable reproduce
>>
>> You have been occasionally submitting fixes for send/receive for a few
>> years now, and you know already
>> that I always ask for a changelog that describes well the problem and
>> an example/reproducer.
>>
>> Why did you do this?
>>
>> What I can read from your answer is that you were too lazy to extract
>> a reproducer from that image.
>> Just made some change that fixes the infinite loop and because it
>> apparently works you're done with it,
>> Without an example at least, I don't think you or anyone can fully
>> understand the problem, and if what
>> you have (despite somewhat making theoretical sense) is really a good
>> solution or just a workaround for
>> the cause of the problem - after all if you can't give an example, you
>> can't explain how in practice such loop
>> of dependencies between directories happens. This, as with most
>> send/receive problems, is a pure sequential
>> and deterministic problem so there's really no excuse for not getting
>> a reproducer.
>>
>> Without an example, an explanation how it happens in the real world,
>> does one know that your change is
>> fixing the problem is the right place and not introducing other
>> problems? Like the receiver not getting some
>> changes (missing directories, files, or renames, etc).
>>
>> Tests are not just to prove a change is correct, they exist to catch
>> and prevent regressions in the future too.
>>
>> You can do better than that.
>>
>>>
>>> Image file, please refer to the attachment.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 11 ++++++++---
>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c
>>>>> index 094cc144..5be83b5 100644
>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c
>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c
>>>>> @@ -3340,7 +3340,8 @@ static void free_pending_move(struct send_ctx
>>>>> *sctx, struct pending_dir_move *m)
>>>>> kfree(m);
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> -static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move
>>>>> *moves,
>>>>> +static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx,
>>>>> + struct pending_dir_move
>>>>> *moves,
>>>>> struct list_head *stack)
>>>>> {
>>>>> if (list_empty(&moves->list)) {
>>>>> @@ -3351,6 +3352,10 @@ static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct
>>>>> pending_dir_move *moves,
>>>>> list_add_tail(&moves->list, stack);
>>>>> list_splice_tail(&list, stack);
>>>>> }
>>>>> + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&moves->node)) {
>>>>> + rb_erase(&moves->node, &sctx->pending_dir_moves);
>>>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&moves->node);
>>>>> + }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx)
>>>>> @@ -3365,7 +3370,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct
>>>>> send_ctx *sctx)
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&stack);
>>>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack);
>>>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack);
>>>>>
>>>>> while (!list_empty(&stack)) {
>>>>> pm = list_first_entry(&stack, struct
>>>>> pending_dir_move,
>>>>> list);
>>>>> @@ -3376,7 +3381,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct
>>>>> send_ctx *sctx)
>>>>> goto out;
>>>>> pm = get_pending_dir_moves(sctx, parent_ino);
>>>>> if (pm)
>>>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack);
>>>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm,
>>>>> &stack);
>>>>> }
>>>>> return 0;
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> 1.9.1
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
robbieko 於 2018-11-06 20:23 寫到: > Hi, > > I can reproduce the infinite loop, the following will describe the > reason and example. > > Example: > tree --inodes parent/ send/ > parent/ > `-- [ 261] 261 > `-- [ 271] 271 > `-- [ 266] 266 > |-- [ 259] 259 > |-- [ 260] 260 > | `-- [ 267] 267 > |-- [ 264] 264 > | `-- [ 258] 258 > | `-- [ 257] 257 > |-- [ 265] 265 > |-- [ 268] 268 > |-- [ 269] 269 > | `-- [ 262] 262 > |-- [ 270] 270 > |-- [ 272] 272 > | |-- [ 263] 263 > | `-- [ 275] 275 > `-- [ 274] 274 > `-- [ 273] 273 > send/ > `-- [ 275] 275 > `-- [ 274] 274 > `-- [ 273] 273 > `-- [ 262] 262 > `-- [ 269] 269 > `-- [ 258] 258 > `-- [ 271] 271 > `-- [ 268] 268 > `-- [ 267] 267 > `-- [ 270] 270 > |-- [ 259] 259 > | `-- [ 265] 265 > `-- [ 272] 272 > `-- [ 257] 257 > |-- [ 260] 260 > `-- [ 264] 264 > `-- [ 263] 263 > `-- [ 261] > 261 > `-- [ > 266] 266 > > > 1. While process inode 257, we delay its rename operation because inode > 272 > has not been renamed (since 272 > 257, that is, beyond the current > progress). > > 2. And so on (inode 258-274), we can get a bunch of waiting waiting > relationships > 257 -> (wait for) 272 > 258 -> 269 > 259 -> 270 > 260 -> 272 > 261 -> 263 > 262 -> 274 > 263 -> 264 > 264 -> 257 > 265 -> 270 > 266 -> 263 > 267 -> 268 > 268 -> 271 > 269 -> 262 > 270 -> 271 > 271 -> 258 > 272 -> 274 > 274 -> 275 > > 3. While processing inode 275, we rename ./261/271/272/275 to ./275, > and then now we start processing the waiting subdirectories in > apply_children_dir_moves. > > 4. We first initialize the stack into an empty list, and then we add > 274 to the stack > because 274 is waiting for 275 to complete. > Every time we take the first object in the stack to process it. > > 5. So we can observe the change in object in the stack. > loop: > round 1. 274 > 2. 262 -> 272 > 3. 272 -> 269 > 4. 269 -> 257 -> 260 > 5. 257 -> 260 -> 258 > 6. 260 -> 258 -> 264 > 7. 258 -> 264 > 8. 264 -> 271 > 9. 271 -> 263 > 10. 263 -> 268 -> 270 > 11. 268 -> 270 -> 261 -> 266 > 12. 270 -> 261 -> 266 -> 267 > 13. 261 -> 266 -> 267 -> 259 -> 265 (since 270 path loop, so > we add 270 waiting for 267) > 14. 266 -> 267 -> 259 -> 265 > 15. 267 -> 266 -> 259 -> 265 (since 266 path loop, so we > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > 16. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 > 17. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > 18. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > 19. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > ... infinite loop > > 6. In round 13, we processing 270, we delayed the rename because 270 > has a path loop with 267, > and then we add 259, 265 to the stack, but we don't remove from > pending_dir_moves rb_tree. > > 7. In round 15, we processing 266, we delayed the rename because 266 > has a path loop with 270, > So we look for parent_ino equal to 270 from pending_dir_moves, and we > find ino 259 > because it was not removed from pending_dir_moves. > Then we create a new pending_dir and join the ino 259, because the ino > 259 is currently in the stack, > the new pending_dir ino 266 is also indirectly added to the stack, > placed between 267 and 259. > > So we fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves, > avoid add new pending_dir_move to stack list. > Does anyone have any suggestions ? Later, I will submit the case in xfstest. > Qu Wenruo 於 2018-11-05 22:35 寫到: >> On 2018/11/5 下午7:11, Filipe Manana wrote: >>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:10 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Filipe Manana 於 2018-10-30 19:36 寫到: >>>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> >>>>>> >>>>>> In apply_children_dir_moves, we first create an empty list >>>>>> (stack), >>>>>> then we get an entry from pending_dir_moves and add it to the >>>>>> stack, >>>>>> but we didn't delete the entry from rb_tree. >>>>>> >>>>>> So, in add_pending_dir_move, we create a new entry and then use >>>>>> the >>>>>> parent_ino in the current rb_tree to find the corresponding entry, >>>>>> and if so, add the new entry to the corresponding list. >>>>>> >>>>>> However, the entry may have been added to the stack, causing new >>>>>> entries to be added to the stack as well. >> >> I'm not a send guy, so I can totally be wrong, but that 'may' word >> seems >> to hide the demon. >> >>>>>> >>>>>> Finally, each time we take the first entry from the stack and >>>>>> start >>>>>> processing, it ends up with an infinite loop. >>>>>> >>>>>> Fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves, >>>>>> avoid add new pending_dir_move to error list. >>>>> >>>>> I can't parse that explanation. >>>>> Can you give a concrete example (reproducer) or did this came out >>>>> of >>>>> thin air? >>>>> >>>>> Thanks. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I am sorry that I replied so late. >>>> >>>> I have no way to give a simple example. >>>> But I can provide a btrfs image file >>>> You can restore the Image via btrfs-image >>>> Then directly command "btrfs send -e -p parent send -f dump_file" >> >> According to the name, it doesn't look like a real world case, but >> some >> more or less manually crafted image. >> It shouldn't be that hard to describe the root cause in details if >> it's >> crafted. >> >> Or, if it's a image caused by some stress test, then I really hope you >> could locate the direct and root cause, or at least minimize the >> image. >> The extra noise will really take a lot of time from reviewer. >> >> IMHO, it shouldn't be that hard to locate the key/key range that send >> loops, with that located it should provide some clue to further pin >> down >> the root cause. >> >> I totally understand that everyone has their own work, if you can't >> really spare time for this, would you please upload the image to >> public >> for anyone (me for example) to look into the case? >> >> Thanks, >> Qu >> >>>> Infinite loop will occur. >>>> I use ubuntu 16.04, kernel 4.15.0.36-generic can be stable reproduce >>> >>> You have been occasionally submitting fixes for send/receive for a >>> few >>> years now, and you know already >>> that I always ask for a changelog that describes well the problem and >>> an example/reproducer. >>> >>> Why did you do this? >>> >>> What I can read from your answer is that you were too lazy to extract >>> a reproducer from that image. >>> Just made some change that fixes the infinite loop and because it >>> apparently works you're done with it, >>> Without an example at least, I don't think you or anyone can fully >>> understand the problem, and if what >>> you have (despite somewhat making theoretical sense) is really a good >>> solution or just a workaround for >>> the cause of the problem - after all if you can't give an example, >>> you >>> can't explain how in practice such loop >>> of dependencies between directories happens. This, as with most >>> send/receive problems, is a pure sequential >>> and deterministic problem so there's really no excuse for not getting >>> a reproducer. >>> >>> Without an example, an explanation how it happens in the real world, >>> does one know that your change is >>> fixing the problem is the right place and not introducing other >>> problems? Like the receiver not getting some >>> changes (missing directories, files, or renames, etc). >>> >>> Tests are not just to prove a change is correct, they exist to catch >>> and prevent regressions in the future too. >>> >>> You can do better than that. >>> >>>> >>>> Image file, please refer to the attachment. >>>> >>>> Thanks. >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 11 ++++++++--- >>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >>>>>> >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>>>> index 094cc144..5be83b5 100644 >>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c >>>>>> @@ -3340,7 +3340,8 @@ static void free_pending_move(struct >>>>>> send_ctx >>>>>> *sctx, struct pending_dir_move *m) >>>>>> kfree(m); >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> -static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move >>>>>> *moves, >>>>>> +static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx, >>>>>> + struct pending_dir_move >>>>>> *moves, >>>>>> struct list_head *stack) >>>>>> { >>>>>> if (list_empty(&moves->list)) { >>>>>> @@ -3351,6 +3352,10 @@ static void >>>>>> tail_append_pending_moves(struct >>>>>> pending_dir_move *moves, >>>>>> list_add_tail(&moves->list, stack); >>>>>> list_splice_tail(&list, stack); >>>>>> } >>>>>> + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&moves->node)) { >>>>>> + rb_erase(&moves->node, &sctx->pending_dir_moves); >>>>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&moves->node); >>>>>> + } >>>>>> } >>>>>> >>>>>> static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) >>>>>> @@ -3365,7 +3370,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct >>>>>> send_ctx *sctx) >>>>>> return 0; >>>>>> >>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&stack); >>>>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); >>>>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); >>>>>> >>>>>> while (!list_empty(&stack)) { >>>>>> pm = list_first_entry(&stack, struct >>>>>> pending_dir_move, >>>>>> list); >>>>>> @@ -3376,7 +3381,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct >>>>>> send_ctx *sctx) >>>>>> goto out; >>>>>> pm = get_pending_dir_moves(sctx, parent_ino); >>>>>> if (pm) >>>>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); >>>>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, >>>>>> &stack); >>>>>> } >>>>>> return 0; >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> 1.9.1 >>>>>> >>> >>> >>>
On Fri, Nov 9, 2018 at 1:21 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> wrote: > > robbieko 於 2018-11-06 20:23 寫到: > > Hi, > > > > I can reproduce the infinite loop, the following will describe the > > reason and example. > > > > Example: > > tree --inodes parent/ send/ > > parent/ > > `-- [ 261] 261 > > `-- [ 271] 271 > > `-- [ 266] 266 > > |-- [ 259] 259 > > |-- [ 260] 260 > > | `-- [ 267] 267 > > |-- [ 264] 264 > > | `-- [ 258] 258 > > | `-- [ 257] 257 > > |-- [ 265] 265 > > |-- [ 268] 268 > > |-- [ 269] 269 > > | `-- [ 262] 262 > > |-- [ 270] 270 > > |-- [ 272] 272 > > | |-- [ 263] 263 > > | `-- [ 275] 275 > > `-- [ 274] 274 > > `-- [ 273] 273 > > send/ > > `-- [ 275] 275 > > `-- [ 274] 274 > > `-- [ 273] 273 > > `-- [ 262] 262 > > `-- [ 269] 269 > > `-- [ 258] 258 > > `-- [ 271] 271 > > `-- [ 268] 268 > > `-- [ 267] 267 > > `-- [ 270] 270 > > |-- [ 259] 259 > > | `-- [ 265] 265 > > `-- [ 272] 272 > > `-- [ 257] 257 > > |-- [ 260] 260 > > `-- [ 264] 264 > > `-- [ 263] 263 > > `-- [ 261] > > 261 > > `-- [ > > 266] 266 > > > > > > 1. While process inode 257, we delay its rename operation because inode > > 272 > > has not been renamed (since 272 > 257, that is, beyond the current > > progress). > > > > 2. And so on (inode 258-274), we can get a bunch of waiting waiting > > relationships > > 257 -> (wait for) 272 > > 258 -> 269 > > 259 -> 270 > > 260 -> 272 > > 261 -> 263 > > 262 -> 274 > > 263 -> 264 > > 264 -> 257 > > 265 -> 270 > > 266 -> 263 > > 267 -> 268 > > 268 -> 271 > > 269 -> 262 > > 270 -> 271 > > 271 -> 258 > > 272 -> 274 > > 274 -> 275 > > > > 3. While processing inode 275, we rename ./261/271/272/275 to ./275, > > and then now we start processing the waiting subdirectories in > > apply_children_dir_moves. > > > > 4. We first initialize the stack into an empty list, and then we add > > 274 to the stack > > because 274 is waiting for 275 to complete. > > Every time we take the first object in the stack to process it. > > > > 5. So we can observe the change in object in the stack. > > loop: > > round 1. 274 > > 2. 262 -> 272 > > 3. 272 -> 269 > > 4. 269 -> 257 -> 260 > > 5. 257 -> 260 -> 258 > > 6. 260 -> 258 -> 264 > > 7. 258 -> 264 > > 8. 264 -> 271 > > 9. 271 -> 263 > > 10. 263 -> 268 -> 270 > > 11. 268 -> 270 -> 261 -> 266 > > 12. 270 -> 261 -> 266 -> 267 > > 13. 261 -> 266 -> 267 -> 259 -> 265 (since 270 path loop, so > > we add 270 waiting for 267) > > 14. 266 -> 267 -> 259 -> 265 > > 15. 267 -> 266 -> 259 -> 265 (since 266 path loop, so we > > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > > 16. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 > > 17. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we > > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > > 18. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we > > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > > 19. 266 -> 259 -> 265 -> 270 (since 266 path loop, so we > > add 266 waiting for 270, but we don't add to stack) > > ... infinite loop > > > > 6. In round 13, we processing 270, we delayed the rename because 270 > > has a path loop with 267, > > and then we add 259, 265 to the stack, but we don't remove from > > pending_dir_moves rb_tree. > > > > 7. In round 15, we processing 266, we delayed the rename because 266 > > has a path loop with 270, > > So we look for parent_ino equal to 270 from pending_dir_moves, and we > > find ino 259 > > because it was not removed from pending_dir_moves. > > Then we create a new pending_dir and join the ino 259, because the ino > > 259 is currently in the stack, > > the new pending_dir ino 266 is also indirectly added to the stack, > > placed between 267 and 259. > > > > So we fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves, > > avoid add new pending_dir_move to stack list. > > > > Does anyone have any suggestions ? A better changelog. But for that I'll have to go through it and understand what's happening (and see if this is the right way to fix it). Will probably do it next week. > Later, I will submit the case in xfstest. > > > > Qu Wenruo 於 2018-11-05 22:35 寫到: > >> On 2018/11/5 下午7:11, Filipe Manana wrote: > >>> On Mon, Nov 5, 2018 at 4:10 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> > >>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Filipe Manana 於 2018-10-30 19:36 寫到: > >>>>> On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 7:00 AM robbieko <robbieko@synology.com> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> From: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In apply_children_dir_moves, we first create an empty list > >>>>>> (stack), > >>>>>> then we get an entry from pending_dir_moves and add it to the > >>>>>> stack, > >>>>>> but we didn't delete the entry from rb_tree. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> So, in add_pending_dir_move, we create a new entry and then use > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> parent_ino in the current rb_tree to find the corresponding entry, > >>>>>> and if so, add the new entry to the corresponding list. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> However, the entry may have been added to the stack, causing new > >>>>>> entries to be added to the stack as well. > >> > >> I'm not a send guy, so I can totally be wrong, but that 'may' word > >> seems > >> to hide the demon. > >> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Finally, each time we take the first entry from the stack and > >>>>>> start > >>>>>> processing, it ends up with an infinite loop. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Fix this problem by remove node from pending_dir_moves, > >>>>>> avoid add new pending_dir_move to error list. > >>>>> > >>>>> I can't parse that explanation. > >>>>> Can you give a concrete example (reproducer) or did this came out > >>>>> of > >>>>> thin air? > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> I am sorry that I replied so late. > >>>> > >>>> I have no way to give a simple example. > >>>> But I can provide a btrfs image file > >>>> You can restore the Image via btrfs-image > >>>> Then directly command "btrfs send -e -p parent send -f dump_file" > >> > >> According to the name, it doesn't look like a real world case, but > >> some > >> more or less manually crafted image. > >> It shouldn't be that hard to describe the root cause in details if > >> it's > >> crafted. > >> > >> Or, if it's a image caused by some stress test, then I really hope you > >> could locate the direct and root cause, or at least minimize the > >> image. > >> The extra noise will really take a lot of time from reviewer. > >> > >> IMHO, it shouldn't be that hard to locate the key/key range that send > >> loops, with that located it should provide some clue to further pin > >> down > >> the root cause. > >> > >> I totally understand that everyone has their own work, if you can't > >> really spare time for this, would you please upload the image to > >> public > >> for anyone (me for example) to look into the case? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> Qu > >> > >>>> Infinite loop will occur. > >>>> I use ubuntu 16.04, kernel 4.15.0.36-generic can be stable reproduce > >>> > >>> You have been occasionally submitting fixes for send/receive for a > >>> few > >>> years now, and you know already > >>> that I always ask for a changelog that describes well the problem and > >>> an example/reproducer. > >>> > >>> Why did you do this? > >>> > >>> What I can read from your answer is that you were too lazy to extract > >>> a reproducer from that image. > >>> Just made some change that fixes the infinite loop and because it > >>> apparently works you're done with it, > >>> Without an example at least, I don't think you or anyone can fully > >>> understand the problem, and if what > >>> you have (despite somewhat making theoretical sense) is really a good > >>> solution or just a workaround for > >>> the cause of the problem - after all if you can't give an example, > >>> you > >>> can't explain how in practice such loop > >>> of dependencies between directories happens. This, as with most > >>> send/receive problems, is a pure sequential > >>> and deterministic problem so there's really no excuse for not getting > >>> a reproducer. > >>> > >>> Without an example, an explanation how it happens in the real world, > >>> does one know that your change is > >>> fixing the problem is the right place and not introducing other > >>> problems? Like the receiver not getting some > >>> changes (missing directories, files, or renames, etc). > >>> > >>> Tests are not just to prove a change is correct, they exist to catch > >>> and prevent regressions in the future too. > >>> > >>> You can do better than that. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Image file, please refer to the attachment. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Signed-off-by: Robbie Ko <robbieko@synology.com> > >>>>>> --- > >>>>>> fs/btrfs/send.c | 11 ++++++++--- > >>>>>> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>>>> index 094cc144..5be83b5 100644 > >>>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c > >>>>>> @@ -3340,7 +3340,8 @@ static void free_pending_move(struct > >>>>>> send_ctx > >>>>>> *sctx, struct pending_dir_move *m) > >>>>>> kfree(m); > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move > >>>>>> *moves, > >>>>>> +static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx, > >>>>>> + struct pending_dir_move > >>>>>> *moves, > >>>>>> struct list_head *stack) > >>>>>> { > >>>>>> if (list_empty(&moves->list)) { > >>>>>> @@ -3351,6 +3352,10 @@ static void > >>>>>> tail_append_pending_moves(struct > >>>>>> pending_dir_move *moves, > >>>>>> list_add_tail(&moves->list, stack); > >>>>>> list_splice_tail(&list, stack); > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&moves->node)) { > >>>>>> + rb_erase(&moves->node, &sctx->pending_dir_moves); > >>>>>> + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&moves->node); > >>>>>> + } > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> > >>>>>> static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) > >>>>>> @@ -3365,7 +3370,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct > >>>>>> send_ctx *sctx) > >>>>>> return 0; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&stack); > >>>>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); > >>>>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); > >>>>>> > >>>>>> while (!list_empty(&stack)) { > >>>>>> pm = list_first_entry(&stack, struct > >>>>>> pending_dir_move, > >>>>>> list); > >>>>>> @@ -3376,7 +3381,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct > >>>>>> send_ctx *sctx) > >>>>>> goto out; > >>>>>> pm = get_pending_dir_moves(sctx, parent_ino); > >>>>>> if (pm) > >>>>>> - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); > >>>>>> + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, > >>>>>> &stack); > >>>>>> } > >>>>>> return 0; > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -- > >>>>>> 1.9.1 > >>>>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> >
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/send.c b/fs/btrfs/send.c index 094cc144..5be83b5 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/send.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/send.c @@ -3340,7 +3340,8 @@ static void free_pending_move(struct send_ctx *sctx, struct pending_dir_move *m) kfree(m); } -static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move *moves, +static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx, + struct pending_dir_move *moves, struct list_head *stack) { if (list_empty(&moves->list)) { @@ -3351,6 +3352,10 @@ static void tail_append_pending_moves(struct pending_dir_move *moves, list_add_tail(&moves->list, stack); list_splice_tail(&list, stack); } + if (!RB_EMPTY_NODE(&moves->node)) { + rb_erase(&moves->node, &sctx->pending_dir_moves); + RB_CLEAR_NODE(&moves->node); + } } static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) @@ -3365,7 +3370,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) return 0; INIT_LIST_HEAD(&stack); - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); while (!list_empty(&stack)) { pm = list_first_entry(&stack, struct pending_dir_move, list); @@ -3376,7 +3381,7 @@ static int apply_children_dir_moves(struct send_ctx *sctx) goto out; pm = get_pending_dir_moves(sctx, parent_ino); if (pm) - tail_append_pending_moves(pm, &stack); + tail_append_pending_moves(sctx, pm, &stack); } return 0;