I just had a thought on the dirbad panics (which we are also getting occassionally). These are the symptoms I see: * Seems to be related to softupdates * In all the panics I've seen, what I have *NOT* seen has been any panics related to bitmap corruption. I added a lot of extra checks in both the bitmap allocation and free code and not one of them has been hit. * I have not seen any vm_page corruption. e.g. no ref count panics. * The dirbad panics occurs infrequently, implying a narrow window where it occucrs. * The dirbad panics seem to be related to extraction of a tar, or filesystem synchronization. If we assume the file extension is not the problem (unless reallocblks or fragextend is the problem), then it could be related to truncation. * In all core dumps I've seen from DragonFly systems exhibiting the failure, the directory block in question has universally appeared to contain data from a fail. In the last dump I looked at the first 1K of an 8K directory block (well beyond the direct block array in the inode) contained data from a file while the remaining 7K had directory data in it. There are two scenarios that I can think of that can have these effects yet not trigger any of the bitmap corruption tests/panics. (1) If ffs_blkfree() is called on a block who's related buffer still exists and is or might become dirty, then a totally UNRELATED vnode can immediately reallocate the physical block and issue its own I/O operation. So we wind up with two buffer cache buffers with different vnodes and lblkno's but the same blkno, at least temporarily. The condition would only need to hold long enough for the writes to be ordered the wrong way and poof, the new vnode winds up with someone else's data in it. (2) If getblk() is called on (blkdev, blkno) (which softupdates does) and this somehow survives (vp, lblkno) and gets written back after the bitmap related to (vp, lblkno) has been freed, the data might now be owned by a different vnode and we'd be corrupting another vnode's data. The question is... can such a scenario occur anywhere in the UFS code? In particular with softupdates enabled? I did see one possible issue, and that is the fact that softdep_setup_freeblocks() is called BEFORE vinvalbuf() in ffs_truncate(). If softdeps somehow is able to execute *ANY* of those workitems before the vinvalbuf runs, in particular if there is already I/O in progress on any of those buffers (and thus doesn't get invalidated by vinvalbuf until after the I/O is complete), then that could result in the above scenario. The case occurs in several situations but the main one that DragonFly and FreeBSD shares is when a file is truncated to 0-length. -MattReceived on Mon Dec 05 2005 - 03:41:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:38:48 UTC