浏览代码

btrfs: Fix lost-data-profile caused by auto removing bg

Reproduce:
 (In integration-4.3 branch)

 TEST_DEV=(/dev/vdg /dev/vdh)
 TEST_DIR=/mnt/tmp

 umount "$TEST_DEV" >/dev/null
 mkfs.btrfs -f -d raid1 "${TEST_DEV[@]}"

 mount -o nospace_cache "$TEST_DEV" "$TEST_DIR"
 umount "$TEST_DEV"

 mount -o nospace_cache "$TEST_DEV" "$TEST_DIR"
 btrfs filesystem usage $TEST_DIR

We can see the data chunk changed from raid1 to single:
 # btrfs filesystem usage $TEST_DIR
 Data,single: Size:8.00MiB, Used:0.00B
    /dev/vdg        8.00MiB
 #

Reason:
 When a empty filesystem mount with -o nospace_cache, the last
 data blockgroup will be auto-removed in umount.

 Then if we mount it again, there is no data chunk in the
 filesystem, so the only available data profile is 0x0, result
 is all new chunks are created as single type.

Fix:
 Don't auto-delete last blockgroup for a raid type.

Test:
 Test by above script, and confirmed the logic by debug output.

Reviewed-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com>
Signed-off-by: Zhao Lei <zhaolei@cn.fujitsu.com>
Signed-off-by: Chris Mason <clm@fb.com>
Zhao Lei 10 年之前
父节点
当前提交
aefbe9a633
共有 1 个文件被更改,包括 5 次插入2 次删除
  1. 5 2
      fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c

+ 5 - 2
fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c

@@ -10279,8 +10279,10 @@ void btrfs_delete_unused_bgs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
 		block_group = list_first_entry(&fs_info->unused_bgs,
 					       struct btrfs_block_group_cache,
 					       bg_list);
-		space_info = block_group->space_info;
 		list_del_init(&block_group->bg_list);
+
+		space_info = block_group->space_info;
+
 		if (ret || btrfs_mixed_space_info(space_info)) {
 			btrfs_put_block_group(block_group);
 			continue;
@@ -10294,7 +10296,8 @@ void btrfs_delete_unused_bgs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
 		spin_lock(&block_group->lock);
 		if (block_group->reserved ||
 		    btrfs_block_group_used(&block_group->item) ||
-		    block_group->ro) {
+		    block_group->ro ||
+		    list_is_singular(&block_group->list)) {
 			/*
 			 * We want to bail if we made new allocations or have
 			 * outstanding allocations in this block group.  We do