On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 11:24 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 2021/2/18 下午2:59, Erik Jensen wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 10:09 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >> On 2021/2/18 下午1:49, Erik Jensen wrote:
> >>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 9:24 PM Qu Wenruo <quwenruo.bt...@gmx.com> wrote:
> >>>> Got it now.
> >>>>
> >>>> [  295.249182] read_extent_buffer_pages: eb->start=26207780683776 
> >>>> mirror=0
> >>>> [  295.249188] __btrfs_map_block: logical=8615594639360 chunk
> >>>> start=8614760677376 len=4294967296 type=0x81
> >>>> [  295.249189] __btrfs_map_block: stripe[0] devid=3 phy=2118735708160
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that, the initial request is to read from 26207780683776.
> >>>> But inside btrfs_map_block(), we want to read from 8615594639360.
> >>>>
> >>>> This is totally screwed up in a unexpected way.
> >>>>
> >>>> 26207780683776 = 0x17d5f9754000
> >>>> 8615594639360  = 0x07d5f9754000
> >>>>
> >>>> See the missing leading 1, which screws up the result.
> >>>>
> >>>> The problem should be the logical calculation part, which doesn't do
> >>>> proper u64 conversion which could cause the problem.
> >>>>
> >>>> Would you like to test the single line fix below?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Qu
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >>>> index b8fab44394f5..69d728f5ff9e 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c
> >>>> @@ -6575,7 +6575,7 @@ blk_status_t btrfs_map_bio(struct btrfs_fs_info
> >>>> *fs_info, struct bio *bio,
> >>>>     {
> >>>>            struct btrfs_device *dev;
> >>>>            struct bio *first_bio = bio;
> >>>> -       u64 logical = bio->bi_iter.bi_sector << 9;
> >>>> +       u64 logical = ((u64)bio->bi_iter.bi_sector) << 9;
> >>>>            u64 length = 0;
> >>>>            u64 map_length;
> >>>>            int ret;
> >>>
> >>> So… it appears my kernel tree (Arch32's 5.10.14-arch1) already has that:
> >>>
> >>
> >> And I also noticed that since v5.2 kernel, we should already have
> >> bi_sector as u64.
> >>
> >> So why that left shift would get higher bits missing is really strange.
> >> Especially the missing part is just at the 45 bit, not 32 bit boundary.
> >>
> >> Then what about this diff? It goes multiplying other than using
> >> dangerous left shift.
> >>
> >> (Also, it's recommended to still use previous debug diffs, so if it
> >> doesn't work we still have a chance to know what's going wrong).
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Qu
> >
> > No change. I added an extra debug line in btrfs_map_bio, and get the 
> > following:
> >
> > btrfs_map_bio: bio->bi_iter.bi_sector=16827333280, logical=8615594639360
> >
> > bio->bi_iter.bi_sector is 16827333280, not 51187071648, so it looks
> > like the top bit is already missing before the shift / multiplication.
> >
> Special thanks to Su, he points out that, page->index is still just
> unsigned long, which is not ensured to be 64 bits.
>
> Thus page_offset(page) can easily go wrong, which takes page->index and
> does left shift.
>
> Mind to test the following debug diff?
>
> Thanks,
> Qu
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> index 4dfb3ead1175..794f97d6eda7 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/extent_io.c
> @@ -6001,6 +6001,8 @@ int read_extent_buffer_pages(struct extent_buffer
> *eb, int wait, int mirror_num)
>                          }
>
>                          ClearPageError(page);
> +                       pr_info("%s: eb start=%llu i=%d page_offset=%llu\n",
> +                               __func__, eb->start, i, page_offset(page));
>                          err = submit_extent_page(REQ_OP_READ |
> REQ_META, NULL,
>                                           page, page_offset(page),
> PAGE_SIZE, 0,
>                                           &bio, end_bio_extent_readpage,

Here's the new dmesg log:
https://gist.github.com/rkjnsn/5153682d5be865c13966d342ea7cbe9e

Relevant looking new lines:

[   52.903379] read_extent_buffer_pages: eb->start=26207780683776 mirror=0
[   52.903380] read_extent_buffer_pages: eb start=26207780683776 i=0
page_offset=8615594639360
[   52.903400] read_extent_buffer_pages: eb start=26207780683776 i=1
page_offset=8615594643456
[   52.903403] read_extent_buffer_pages: eb start=26207780683776 i=2
page_offset=8615594647552
[   52.903403] read_extent_buffer_pages: eb start=26207780683776 i=3
page_offset=8615594651648

Reply via email to