[1/2] btrfs: Do per-chunk degrade mode check at mount time
diff mbox

Message ID 1442375031-18212-1-git-send-email-quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com
State New
Headers show

Commit Message

Qu Wenruo Sept. 16, 2015, 3:43 a.m. UTC
Btrfs supports different raid profile for meta/data/sys, and as
different profile support different tolerated missing device, it's
better to check if it can be mounted degraded at a per-chunk base.

So this patch will add check for read_one_chunk() against its profile,
other than checking it against with the lowest duplication profile.

Reported-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Reported-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)

Comments

Qu Wenruo Sept. 17, 2015, 1:48 a.m. UTC | #1
To Anand Jain,

Any feedback on this method to allow single chunk still be degraded 
mountable?

It should be much better than allowing degraded mount for any missing 
device case.

Thanks,
Qu

Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/09/16 11:43 +0800:
> Btrfs supports different raid profile for meta/data/sys, and as
> different profile support different tolerated missing device, it's
> better to check if it can be mounted degraded at a per-chunk base.
>
> So this patch will add check for read_one_chunk() against its profile,
> other than checking it against with the lowest duplication profile.
>
> Reported-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Reported-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>   fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> index 644e070..3272187 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> @@ -6164,12 +6164,15 @@ static int read_one_chunk(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *key,
>   			  struct btrfs_chunk *chunk)
>   {
>   	struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &root->fs_info->mapping_tree;
> +	struct super_block *sb = root->fs_info->sb;
>   	struct map_lookup *map;
>   	struct extent_map *em;
>   	u64 logical;
>   	u64 length;
>   	u64 devid;
>   	u8 uuid[BTRFS_UUID_SIZE];
> +	int missing = 0;
> +	int max_tolerated;
>   	int num_stripes;
>   	int ret;
>   	int i;
> @@ -6238,7 +6241,21 @@ static int read_one_chunk(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *key,
>   			btrfs_warn(root->fs_info, "devid %llu uuid %pU is missing",
>   						devid, uuid);
>   		}
> +		if (map->stripes[i].dev->missing)
> +			missing++;
>   		map->stripes[i].dev->in_fs_metadata = 1;
> +
> +	}
> +
> +	/* XXX: Why the function name is SO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG?! */
> +	max_tolerated =
> +		btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(map->type);
> +	if (missing > max_tolerated && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> +		free_extent_map(em);
> +		btrfs_error(root->fs_info, -EIO,
> +			"missing device(%d) exceeds the limit(%d), writeable mount is not allowed\n",
> +			missing, max_tolerated);
> +		return -EIO;
>   	}
>
>   	write_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock);
>
--
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
Anand Jain Sept. 17, 2015, 9:37 a.m. UTC | #2
Hi Qu,

On 09/17/2015 09:48 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> To Anand Jain,
>
> Any feedback on this method to allow single chunk still be degraded
> mountable?
>
> It should be much better than allowing degraded mount for any missing
> device case.

yeah. this changes the way missing devices are counted and its more fine 
grained. makes sense to me.


> Thanks,
> Qu
>
> Qu Wenruo wrote on 2015/09/16 11:43 +0800:
>> Btrfs supports different raid profile for meta/data/sys, and as
>> different profile support different tolerated missing device, it's
>> better to check if it can be mounted degraded at a per-chunk base.
>>
>> So this patch will add check for read_one_chunk() against its profile,
>> other than checking it against with the lowest duplication profile.
>>
>> Reported-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> Reported-by: Anand Jain <anand.jain@oracle.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>   fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 17 +++++++++++++++++
>>   1 file changed, 17 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> index 644e070..3272187 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
>> @@ -6164,12 +6164,15 @@ static int read_one_chunk(struct btrfs_root
>> *root, struct btrfs_key *key,
>>                 struct btrfs_chunk *chunk)
>>   {
>>       struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &root->fs_info->mapping_tree;
>> +    struct super_block *sb = root->fs_info->sb;
>>       struct map_lookup *map;
>>       struct extent_map *em;
>>       u64 logical;
>>       u64 length;
>>       u64 devid;
>>       u8 uuid[BTRFS_UUID_SIZE];
>> +    int missing = 0;
>> +    int max_tolerated;
>>       int num_stripes;
>>       int ret;
>>       int i;
>> @@ -6238,7 +6241,21 @@ static int read_one_chunk(struct btrfs_root
>> *root, struct btrfs_key *key,
>>               btrfs_warn(root->fs_info, "devid %llu uuid %pU is missing",
>>                           devid, uuid);
>>           }
>> +        if (map->stripes[i].dev->missing)
>> +            missing++;
>>           map->stripes[i].dev->in_fs_metadata = 1;
>> +
>> +    }
>> +
>> +    /* XXX: Why the function name is SO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG?! */
>> +    max_tolerated =
>> +        btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(map->type);
>> +    if (missing > max_tolerated && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
>> +        free_extent_map(em);
>> +        btrfs_error(root->fs_info, -EIO,
>> +            "missing device(%d) exceeds the limit(%d), writeable
>> mount is not allowed\n",

  \n is not required.

Thanks, Anand

>> +            missing, max_tolerated);
>> +        return -EIO;
>>       }
>>
>>       write_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock);
>>
--
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

Patch
diff mbox

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
index 644e070..3272187 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
@@ -6164,12 +6164,15 @@  static int read_one_chunk(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *key,
 			  struct btrfs_chunk *chunk)
 {
 	struct btrfs_mapping_tree *map_tree = &root->fs_info->mapping_tree;
+	struct super_block *sb = root->fs_info->sb;
 	struct map_lookup *map;
 	struct extent_map *em;
 	u64 logical;
 	u64 length;
 	u64 devid;
 	u8 uuid[BTRFS_UUID_SIZE];
+	int missing = 0;
+	int max_tolerated;
 	int num_stripes;
 	int ret;
 	int i;
@@ -6238,7 +6241,21 @@  static int read_one_chunk(struct btrfs_root *root, struct btrfs_key *key,
 			btrfs_warn(root->fs_info, "devid %llu uuid %pU is missing",
 						devid, uuid);
 		}
+		if (map->stripes[i].dev->missing)
+			missing++;
 		map->stripes[i].dev->in_fs_metadata = 1;
+
+	}
+
+	/* XXX: Why the function name is SO LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG?! */
+	max_tolerated =
+		btrfs_get_num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures(map->type);
+	if (missing > max_tolerated && !(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
+		free_extent_map(em);
+		btrfs_error(root->fs_info, -EIO,
+			"missing device(%d) exceeds the limit(%d), writeable mount is not allowed\n",
+			missing, max_tolerated);
+		return -EIO;
 	}
 
 	write_lock(&map_tree->map_tree.lock);