6.13-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let me know.
------------------
From: Qu Wenruo wqu@suse.com
[ Upstream commit c0def46dec9c547679a25fe7552c4bcbec0b0dd2 ]
[WARNING] There are several warnings about the recently introduced qgroup auto-removal that it triggers WARN_ON() for the non-zero rfer/excl numbers, e.g:
------------[ cut here ]------------ WARNING: CPU: 67 PID: 2882 at fs/btrfs/qgroup.c:1854 btrfs_remove_qgroup+0x3df/0x450 CPU: 67 UID: 0 PID: 2882 Comm: btrfs-cleaner Kdump: loaded Not tainted 6.11.6-300.fc41.x86_64 #1 RIP: 0010:btrfs_remove_qgroup+0x3df/0x450 Call Trace: <TASK> btrfs_qgroup_cleanup_dropped_subvolume+0x97/0xc0 btrfs_drop_snapshot+0x44e/0xa80 btrfs_clean_one_deleted_snapshot+0xc3/0x110 cleaner_kthread+0xd8/0x130 kthread+0xd2/0x100 ret_from_fork+0x34/0x50 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> ---[ end trace 0000000000000000 ]--- BTRFS warning (device sda): to be deleted qgroup 0/319 has non-zero numbers, rfer 258478080 rfer_cmpr 258478080 excl 0 excl_cmpr 0
[CAUSE] Although the root cause is still unclear, as if qgroup is consistent a fully dropped subvolume (with extra transaction committed) should lead to all zero numbers for the qgroup.
My current guess is the subvolume drop triggered the new subtree drop threshold thus marked qgroup inconsistent, then rescan cleared it but some corner case is not properly handled during subvolume dropping.
But at least for this particular case, since it's only the rfer/excl not properly reset to 0, and qgroup is already marked inconsistent, there is nothing to be worried for the end users.
The user space tool utilizing qgroup would queue a rescan to handle everything, so the kernel wanring is a little overkilled.
[ENHANCEMENT] Enhance the warning inside btrfs_remove_qgroup() by:
- Only do WARN() if CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG is enabled As explained the kernel can handle inconsistent qgroups by simply do a rescan, there is nothing to bother the end users.
- Treat the reserved space leak the same as non-zero numbers By outputting the values and trigger a WARN() if it's a debug build. So far I haven't experienced any case related to reserved space so I hope we will never need to bother them.
Fixes: 839d6ea4f86d ("btrfs: automatically remove the subvolume qgroup") Link: https://github.com/kdave/btrfs-progs/issues/922 Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo wqu@suse.com Reviewed-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com Signed-off-by: David Sterba dsterba@suse.com Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin sashal@kernel.org --- fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++----- 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c index f9b214992212d..993b5e803699e 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c @@ -1838,9 +1838,19 @@ int btrfs_remove_qgroup(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 qgroupid) * Thus its reserved space should all be zero, no matter if qgroup * is consistent or the mode. */ - WARN_ON(qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_DATA] || - qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_META_PREALLOC] || - qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_META_PERTRANS]); + if (qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_DATA] || + qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_META_PREALLOC] || + qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_META_PERTRANS]) { + WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG)); + btrfs_warn_rl(fs_info, +"to be deleted qgroup %u/%llu has non-zero numbers, data %llu meta prealloc %llu meta pertrans %llu", + btrfs_qgroup_level(qgroup->qgroupid), + btrfs_qgroup_subvolid(qgroup->qgroupid), + qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_DATA], + qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_META_PREALLOC], + qgroup->rsv.values[BTRFS_QGROUP_RSV_META_PERTRANS]); + + } /* * The same for rfer/excl numbers, but that's only if our qgroup is * consistent and if it's in regular qgroup mode. @@ -1849,8 +1859,9 @@ int btrfs_remove_qgroup(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 qgroupid) */ if (btrfs_qgroup_mode(fs_info) == BTRFS_QGROUP_MODE_FULL && !(fs_info->qgroup_flags & BTRFS_QGROUP_STATUS_FLAG_INCONSISTENT)) { - if (WARN_ON(qgroup->rfer || qgroup->excl || - qgroup->rfer_cmpr || qgroup->excl_cmpr)) { + if (qgroup->rfer || qgroup->excl || + qgroup->rfer_cmpr || qgroup->excl_cmpr) { + WARN_ON(IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_BTRFS_DEBUG)); btrfs_warn_rl(fs_info, "to be deleted qgroup %u/%llu has non-zero numbers, rfer %llu rfer_cmpr %llu excl %llu excl_cmpr %llu", btrfs_qgroup_level(qgroup->qgroupid),