On Tue, Jun 27, 2017 at 07:20:06AM -0400, Austin S. Hemmelgarn wrote: > On 2017-06-26 22:49, Qu Wenruo wrote: > > > > > > At 06/27/2017 09:59 AM, Anand Jain wrote: > >> > >> > >> On 06/27/2017 09:05 AM, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> At 06/27/2017 02:59 AM, David Sterba wrote: > >>>> On Thu, Mar 09, 2017 at 09:34:35AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote: > >>>>> Btrfs currently uses num_tolerated_disk_barrier_failures to do global > >>>>> check for tolerated missing device. > >>>>> > >>>>> Although the one-size-fit-all solution is quite safe, it's too strict > >>>>> if data and metadata has different duplication level. > >>>>> > >>>>> For example, if one use Single data and RAID1 metadata for 2 disks, it > >>>>> means any missing device will make the fs unable to be degraded > >>>>> mounted. > >>>>> > >>>>> But in fact, some times all single chunks may be in the existing > >>>>> device and in that case, we should allow it to be rw degraded mounted. > >>>>> > >>>>> Such case can be easily reproduced using the following script: > >>>>> # mkfs.btrfs -f -m raid1 -d sing /dev/sdb /dev/sdc > >>>>> # wipefs -f /dev/sdc > >>>>> # mount /dev/sdb -o degraded,rw > >>>>> > >>>>> If using btrfs-debug-tree to check /dev/sdb, one should find that the > >>>>> data chunk is only in sdb, so in fact it should allow degraded mount. > >>>>> > >>>>> This patchset will introduce a new per-chunk degradable check for > >>>>> btrfs, allow above case to succeed, and it's quite small anyway. > >>>>> > >>>>> And enhance kernel error message for missing device, at least kernel > >>>>> can know what's making mount failed, other than meaningless > >>>>> "failed to read system chunk/chunk tree -5". > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to get this merged to 4.14. The flush bio changes are now > >>>> done, > >>>> so the base code should be stable. I've read the previous iterations of > >>>> this patchset, the comments and user feedback. The usecase coverage > >>>> seems to be good and what users expect. > >>> > >>> Thank you for the kindly remind. > >>> > >>>> > >>>> There are some bits in the implementation that I do not like, eg. > >>>> reintroducing memory allocation failure to the barrier check, but IIRC > >>>> no fundamental problems. Please refresh the patchset on top of current > >>>> code that's going to 4.13 (equvalent to the current for-next), I'll > >>>> review that and comment. One or more iterations might be needed, but > >>>> 4.14 target is within reach. > >>> > >>> I'll check the new flush infrastructure and figure out if we can > >>> avoid re-introducing such memory allocation failure with the new > >>> infrastructure. > >> > >> As this is going to address the raid1 availability issue, its better to > >> mark this for the stable. IMO. But I wonder if there is any objection ? > > > > Not sure if stable maintainers (even normal subsystem maintainers) will > > like it, as it's quite a large modification, including dev flush > > infrastructure. > > > > But since v4.14 will be an LTS kernel, we don't need to rush too much to > > push this feature to stable, as long as the feature is planned to reach > > v4.14. > I would personally tend to disagree. It fixes a pretty severe data loss > bug that arises from what most people for some reason think is > acceptable normal usage. I can understand not going too far back, but I > do think it should probably be marked for at least 4.9.
Depends on the amount of the code, but we can make prep paches tailored for 4.9, leaving out the cleanups and just porting the required changes for this patchset. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
