Re: LVM-on-LVM: error while submitting device barriers
From: Ming Lei
Date: Sun Mar 10 2024 - 11:48:05 EST
On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 11:27:22AM -0400, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 10 2024 at 7:34P -0400,
> Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, Mar 09, 2024 at 03:39:02PM -0500, Patrick Plenefisch wrote:
> > > On Wed, Mar 6, 2024 at 11:00 AM Ming Lei <ming.lei@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 05, 2024 at 12:45:13PM -0500, Mike Snitzer wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Feb 29 2024 at 5:05P -0500,
> > > > > Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > On 29/02/2024 21.22, Patrick Plenefisch wrote:
> > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 2:56 PM Goffredo Baroncelli <kreijack@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Your understanding is correct. The only thing that comes to my mind to
> > > > > > > > > cause the problem is asymmetry of the SATA devices. I have one 8TB
> > > > > > > > > device, plus a 1.5TB, 3TB, and 3TB drives. Doing math on the actual
> > > > > > > > > extents, lowerVG/single spans (3TB+3TB), and
> > > > > > > > > lowerVG/lvmPool/lvm/brokenDisk spans (3TB+1.5TB). Both obviously have
> > > > > > > > > the other leg of raid1 on the 8TB drive, but my thought was that the
> > > > > > > > > jump across the 1.5+3TB drive gap was at least "interesting"
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > what about lowerVG/works ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That one is only on two disks, it doesn't span any gaps
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Sorry, but re-reading the original email I found something that I missed before:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > BTRFS error (device dm-75): bdev /dev/mapper/lvm-brokenDisk errs: wr
> > > > > > > 0, rd 0, flush 1, corrupt 0, gen 0
> > > > > > > BTRFS warning (device dm-75): chunk 13631488 missing 1 devices, max
> > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > > > tolerance is 0 for writable mount
> > > > > > > BTRFS: error (device dm-75) in write_all_supers:4379: errno=-5 IO
> > > > > > > failure (errors while submitting device barriers.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Looking at the code, it seems that if a FLUSH commands fails, btrfs
> > > > > > considers that the disk is missing. The it cannot mount RW the device.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I would investigate with the LVM developers, if it properly passes
> > > > > > the flush/barrier command through all the layers, when we have an
> > > > > > lvm over lvm (raid1). The fact that the lvm is a raid1, is important because
> > > > > > a flush command to be honored has to be honored by all the
> > > > > > devices involved.
> > > >
> > > > Hello Patrick & Goffredo,
> > > >
> > > > I can trigger this kind of btrfs complaint by simulating one FLUSH failure.
> > > >
> > > > If you can reproduce this issue easily, please collect log by the
> > > > following bpftrace script, which may show where the flush failure is,
> > > > and maybe it can help to narrow down the issue in the whole stack.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > #!/usr/bin/bpftrace
> > > >
> > > > #ifndef BPFTRACE_HAVE_BTF
> > > > #include <linux/blkdev.h>
> > > > #endif
> > > >
> > > > kprobe:submit_bio_noacct,
> > > > kprobe:submit_bio
> > > > / (((struct bio *)arg0)->bi_opf & (1 << __REQ_PREFLUSH)) != 0 /
> > > > {
> > > > $bio = (struct bio *)arg0;
> > > > @submit_stack[arg0] = kstack;
> > > > @tracked[arg0] = 1;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > kprobe:bio_endio
> > > > /@tracked[arg0] != 0/
> > > > {
> > > > $bio = (struct bio *)arg0;
> > > >
> > > > if (($bio->bi_flags & (1 << BIO_CHAIN)) && $bio->__bi_remaining.counter > 1) {
> > > > return;
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > if ($bio->bi_status != 0) {
> > > > printf("dev %s bio failed %d, submitter %s completion %s\n",
> > > > $bio->bi_bdev->bd_disk->disk_name,
> > > > $bio->bi_status, @submit_stack[arg0], kstack);
> > > > }
> > > > delete(@submit_stack[arg0]);
> > > > delete(@tracked[arg0]);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > END {
> > > > clear(@submit_stack);
> > > > clear(@tracked);
> > > > }
> > > >
> > >
> > > Attaching 4 probes...
> > > dev dm-77 bio failed 10, submitter
> > > submit_bio_noacct+5
> > > __send_duplicate_bios+358
> > > __send_empty_flush+179
> > > dm_submit_bio+857
> > > __submit_bio+132
> > > submit_bio_noacct_nocheck+345
> > > write_all_supers+1718
> > > btrfs_commit_transaction+2342
> > > transaction_kthread+345
> > > kthread+229
> > > ret_from_fork+49
> > > ret_from_fork_asm+27
> > > completion
> > > bio_endio+5
> > > dm_submit_bio+955
> > > __submit_bio+132
> > > submit_bio_noacct_nocheck+345
> > > write_all_supers+1718
> > > btrfs_commit_transaction+2342
> > > transaction_kthread+345
> > > kthread+229
> > > ret_from_fork+49
> > > ret_from_fork_asm+27
> > >
> > > dev dm-86 bio failed 10, submitter
> > > submit_bio_noacct+5
> > > write_all_supers+1718
> > > btrfs_commit_transaction+2342
> > > transaction_kthread+345
> > > kthread+229
> > > ret_from_fork+49
> > > ret_from_fork_asm+27
> > > completion
> > > bio_endio+5
> > > clone_endio+295
> > > clone_endio+295
> > > process_one_work+369
> > > worker_thread+635
> > > kthread+229
> > > ret_from_fork+49
> > > ret_from_fork_asm+27
> > >
> > >
> > > For context, dm-86 is /dev/lvm/brokenDisk and dm-77 is /dev/lowerVG/lvmPool
> >
> > io_status is 10(BLK_STS_IOERR), which is produced in submission code path on
> > /dev/dm-77(/dev/lowerVG/lvmPool) first, so looks it is one device mapper issue.
> >
> > The error should be from the following code only:
> >
> > static void __map_bio(struct bio *clone)
> >
> > ...
> > if (r == DM_MAPIO_KILL)
> > dm_io_dec_pending(io, BLK_STS_IOERR);
> > else
> > dm_io_dec_pending(io, BLK_STS_DM_REQUEUE);
> > break;
>
> I agree that the above bpf stack traces for dm-77 indicate that
> dm_submit_bio failed, which would end up in the above branch if the
> target's ->map() returned DM_MAPIO_KILL or DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE.
>
> But such an early failure speaks to the flush bio never being
> submitted to the underlying storage. No?
>
> dm-raid.c:raid_map does return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE with:
>
> /*
> * If we're reshaping to add disk(s)), ti->len and
> * mddev->array_sectors will differ during the process
> * (ti->len > mddev->array_sectors), so we have to requeue
> * bios with addresses > mddev->array_sectors here or
> * there will occur accesses past EOD of the component
> * data images thus erroring the raid set.
> */
> if (unlikely(bio_end_sector(bio) > mddev->array_sectors))
> return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE;
>
> But a flush doesn't have an end_sector (it'd be 0 afaik).. so it seems
> weird relative to a flush.
Yeah, I also found the above is weird, since DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE is
supposed to work together only with noflush_suspend, see
2e93ccc1933d ("[PATCH] dm: suspend: add noflush pushback"), looks
you already mentioned.
If that is the reason, maybe the following change can make a
difference:
diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
index 5e41fbae3f6b..07af18baa8dd 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
@@ -3331,7 +3331,7 @@ static int raid_map(struct dm_target *ti, struct bio *bio)
* there will occur accesses past EOD of the component
* data images thus erroring the raid set.
*/
- if (unlikely(bio_end_sector(bio) > mddev->array_sectors))
+ if (unlikely(bio_has_data(bio) && bio_end_sector(bio) > mddev->array_sectors))
return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE;
md_handle_request(mddev, bio);
>
> > Patrick, you mentioned lvmPool is raid1, can you explain how lvmPool is
> > built? It is dm-raid1 target or over plain raid1 device which is
> > build over /dev/lowerVG?
>
> In my earlier reply I asked Patrick for both:
> lsblk
> dmsetup table
>
> Picking over the described IO stacks provided earlier (or Goffredo's
> interpretation of it, via ascii art) isn't really a great way to see
> the IO stacks that are in use/question.
>
> > Mike, the logic in the following code doesn't change from v5.18-rc2 to
> > v5.19, but I still can't understand why STS_IOERR is set in
> > dm_io_complete() in case of BLK_STS_DM_REQUEUE && !__noflush_suspending(),
> > since DMF_NOFLUSH_SUSPENDING is only set in __dm_suspend() which
> > is supposed to not happen in Patrick's case.
> >
> > dm_io_complete()
> > ...
> > if (io->status == BLK_STS_DM_REQUEUE) {
> > unsigned long flags;
> > /*
> > * Target requested pushing back the I/O.
> > */
> > spin_lock_irqsave(&md->deferred_lock, flags);
> > if (__noflush_suspending(md) &&
> > !WARN_ON_ONCE(dm_is_zone_write(md, bio))) {
> > /* NOTE early return due to BLK_STS_DM_REQUEUE below */
> > bio_list_add_head(&md->deferred, bio);
> > } else {
> > /*
> > * noflush suspend was interrupted or this is
> > * a write to a zoned target.
> > */
> > io->status = BLK_STS_IOERR;
> > }
> > spin_unlock_irqrestore(&md->deferred_lock, flags);
> > }
>
> Given the reason from dm-raid.c:raid_map returning DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE
> I think the DM device could be suspending without flush.
>
> But regardless, given you logged BLK_STS_IOERR lets assume it isn't,
> the assumption that "noflush suspend was interrupted" seems like a
> stale comment -- especially given that target's like dm-raid are now
> using DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE without concern for the historic tight-coupling
> of noflush suspend (which was always the case for the biggest historic
> reason for this code: dm-multipath, see commit 2e93ccc1933d0 from
> 2006 -- predates my time with developing DM).
>
> So all said, this code seems flawed for dm-raid (and possibly other
> targets that return DM_MAPIO_REQUEUE). I'll look closer this week.
Agree, the change is added since 9dbd1aa3a81c ("dm raid: add reshaping
support to the target"), so loop Heinz in.
Thanks,
Ming