Date: Fri, 10 Nov 2023 15:31:38 +0100 From: Martin Matuska <mm@FreeBSD.org> To: d@delphij.net, FreeBSD-STABLE Mailing List <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org>, pjd@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: Is 14.0 to released based on 0 for sysctl vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled ? Message-ID: <ba2e7bdc-68ba-4093-816a-2f0ea5bb6a07@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <47c5b902-eea6-4194-b84a-99a6343f6bd0@delphij.net> References: <2F81D978-7DBD-42CE-8ECF-C020B0CB5C29.ref@yahoo.com> <2F81D978-7DBD-42CE-8ECF-C020B0CB5C29@yahoo.com> <7a906956-6836-421e-b25e-ff701369e3ed@FreeBSD.org> <BBFDD30F-FB5D-44C8-ADA7-5B5AF859D86A@karels.net> <830CD3A8-DB62-418D-A7F7-8DA6CB46B1F5@yahoo.com> <05b493bc-94a5-4c78-bebf-5581addc5b7b@FreeBSD.org> <47c5b902-eea6-4194-b84a-99a6343f6bd0@delphij.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi Xin, since when have you been using block cloning on the system? Is it possible that there is already corrupted block-cloned data from the past? Is everything on one dataset or are you using multiple datasets for /usr/src and /usr/obj? Best regards, mm On 10. 11. 2023 8:04, Xin Li wrote: > On 2023-11-05 16:34, Martin Matuska wrote: >> OpenZFS 2.2.0 in FreeBSD 14 fully supports block cloning. You can >> work with pools that have feature@block_cloning enabled. >> The sysctl variable vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled affects the behavior of >> zfs_clone_range() which is called by copy_file_range(). When it is >> set to 0, zfs_clone_range() does not do block cloning. >> If it is set to anything else than 0, zfs_clone_range() does block >> cloning (if all conditions are met - same ZFS pool, correct data >> alignment, etc.). >> >> In FreeBSD-main, this tunable is enabled and I plan to enable it in >> stable/14 somewhere around December 11, 2023. >> >> As of today I personally use block cloning on all my systems. > > I'd like to share a different data point. It still panics on my > storage (running -CURRENT about a week ago) when enabled and can be > triggered by "make buildworld buildkernel". I wasn't able to capture > earlier coredump until the most recent one, which panicked with: > > > cpuid = 2 > time = 1699593456 > KDB: stack backtrace: > db_trace_self_wrapper() at db_trace_self_wrapper+0x2b/frame > 0xfffffe022f2bd7e0 > vpanic() at vpanic+0x132/frame 0xfffffe022f2bd910 > spl_panic() at spl_panic+0x3a/frame 0xfffffe022f2bd970 > dmu_brt_clone() at dmu_brt_clone+0x555/frame 0xfffffe022f2bd9e0 > zfs_clone_range() at zfs_clone_range+0xa4c/frame 0xfffffe022f2bdbb0 > zfs_freebsd_copy_file_range() at > zfs_freebsd_copy_file_range+0x18a/frame 0xfffffe022f2bdc30 > vn_copy_file_range() at vn_copy_file_range+0x163/frame 0xfffffe022f2bdce0 > kern_copy_file_range() at kern_copy_file_range+0x380/frame > 0xfffffe022f2bddb0 > sys_copy_file_range() at sys_copy_file_range+0x78/frame > 0xfffffe022f2bde00 > amd64_syscall() at amd64_syscall+0x153/frame 0xfffffe022f2bdf30 > fast_syscall_common() at fast_syscall_common+0xf8/frame > 0xfffffe022f2bdf30 > --- syscall (569, FreeBSD ELF64, copy_file_range), rip = > 0x7fbb2da4ada, rsp = 0x7fbb02c5d48, rbp = 0x7fbb02c61e0 --- > Uptime: 2h32m27s > Dumping 7800 out of 32696 > MB:..1%..11%..21%..31%..41%..51%..61%..71%..81%..91% > > #0 __curthread () at /usr/src/sys/amd64/include/pcpu_aux.h:57 > #1 doadump (textdump=textdump@entry=1) at > /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:405 > #2 0xffffffff80694480 in kern_reboot (howto=260) at > /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:526 > #3 0xffffffff8069497f in vpanic (fmt=0xffffffff82603415 "VERIFY3(nbps > == numbufs) failed (%llu == %llu)\n", ap=ap@entry=0xfffffe022f2bd950) > at /usr/src/sys/kern/kern_shutdown.c:970 > #4 0xffffffff8232999a in spl_panic (file=<optimized out>, > func=<optimized out>, line=<unavailable>, fmt=<unavailable>) at > /usr/src/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/spl/spl_misc.c:103 > #5 0xffffffff823a6605 in dmu_brt_clone > (os=os@entry=0xfffff800c5ce4000, object=<optimized out>, > offset=offset@entry=0, length=length@entry=207477, > tx=tx@entry=0xfffff8071a108d00, bps=bps@entry=0xfffffe01e218c000, > nbps=2, replay=0) > at /usr/src/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/zfs/dmu.c:2303 > #6 0xffffffff8250f67c in zfs_clone_range (inzp=0xfffff804416ac000, > inoffp=0xfffff800b81cb048, outzp=0xfffff806f58f03a0, > outoffp=0xfffff800b8063048, lenp=lenp@entry=0xfffffe022f2bdbf0, > cr=0xfffff8000a6fe600) > at /usr/src/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/zfs/zfs_vnops.c:1326 > #7 0xffffffff8234b3ba in zfs_freebsd_copy_file_range > (ap=0xfffffe022f2bdc48) at > /usr/src/sys/contrib/openzfs/module/os/freebsd/zfs/zfs_vnops_os.c:6294 > #8 0xffffffff8079f443 in VOP_COPY_FILE_RANGE > (invp=0xfffff804416cb1c0, inoffp=0xfffff800b81cb048, > outvp=0xfffff806f51d3380, outoffp=0xfffff800b8063048, > lenp=0xfffffe022f2bdd48, incred=0xfffff8000a6fe600, flags=<optimized > out>, > outcred=<optimized out>, fsizetd=<optimized out>) at > ./vnode_if.h:2385 > #9 vn_copy_file_range (invp=invp@entry=0xfffff804416cb1c0, > inoffp=inoffp@entry=0xfffff800b81cb048, > outvp=outvp@entry=0xfffff806f51d3380, > outoffp=outoffp@entry=0xfffff800b8063048, > lenp=lenp@entry=0xfffffe022f2bdd48, flags=flags@entry=0, > incred=0xfffff8000a6fe600, outcred=0xfffff8000a6fe600, > fsize_td=0xfffffe022925b3a0) at /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_vnops.c:3087 > #10 0xffffffff8079a070 in kern_copy_file_range > (td=td@entry=0xfffffe022925b3a0, infd=<optimized out>, > inoffp=0xfffff800b81cb048, inoffp@entry=0x0, outfd=<optimized out>, > outoffp=0xfffff800b8063048, outoffp@entry=0x0, len=9223372036854775807, > flags=0) at /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_syscalls.c:4973 > #11 0xffffffff8079a178 in sys_copy_file_range (td=0xfffffe022925b3a0, > uap=0xfffffe022925b7a0) at /usr/src/sys/kern/vfs_syscalls.c:5011 > #12 0xffffffff80a97aa3 in syscallenter (td=0xfffffe022925b3a0) at > /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/../../kern/subr_syscall.c:188 > #13 amd64_syscall (td=0xfffffe022925b3a0, traced=0) at > /usr/src/sys/amd64/amd64/trap.c:1194 > #14 <signal handler called> > #15 0x000007fbb2da4ada in ?? () > > > and disabling bclone does appear to allow me to finish buildworld / > buildkernel. > > The pool didn't have redaction_list_spill enabled. > > The ASSERT3U(nbps, ==, numbufs); in dmu_brt_clone was added when block > clone is first implemented. > > It seems that I am the only person who is seeing this as of today. It > seems that block clone was indeed being used for some data: > > saturn bcloneused 1.18M - > saturn bclonesaved 1.21M - > saturn bcloneratio 2.02x - > > The pool have dedup enabled for some datasets. > > Any suggestions? (In extreme cases I can recreate the storage pool > from backup or copy the data somewhere else, then recreate the pool, > then copy data back, but I'd like to avoid that if possible) > > Cheers, > > >> >> mm >> >> On 04/11/2023 13:35, Mark Millard wrote: >>> On Nov 4, 2023, at 04:38, Mike Karels <mike@karels.net> wrote: >>> >>>> On 4 Nov 2023, at 4:01, Ronald Klop wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 11/4/23 02:39, Mark Millard wrote: >>>>>> It looks to me like releng/14.0 (as of 14.0-RC4) still has: >>>>>> >>>>>> int zfs_bclone_enabled; >>>>>> SYSCTL_INT(_vfs_zfs, OID_AUTO, bclone_enabled, CTLFLAG_RWTUN, >>>>>> &zfs_bclone_enabled, 0, "Enable block cloning"); >>>>>> >>>>>> leaving block cloning effectively disabled by default, no >>>>>> matter what the pool has enabled. >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.freebsd.org/releases/14.0R/relnotes/ also reports: >>>>>> >>>>>> QUOTE >>>>>> OpenZFS has been upgraded to version 2.2. New features include: >>>>>> • >>>>>> block cloning, which allows shallow copies of blocks in file >>>>>> copies. This is optional, and disabled by default; it can be >>>>>> enabled with sysctl vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled=1. >>>>>> END QUOTE >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I think this answers your question in the subject. >>>> I think so too (and I wrote that text). >>> Thanks for the confirmation of the final intent. >>> >>> I believe this makes: >>> >>> QUOTE >>> author Brian Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> 2023-05-25 20:53:08 >>> +0000 >>> committer GitHub <noreply@github.com> 2023-05-25 20:53:08 +0000 >>> commit 91a2325c4a0fbe01d0bf212e44fa9d85017837ce (patch) >>> tree dd01dfce6aeef357ade1775acf18aade535c6271 >>> . . . >>> Update compatibility.d files >>> >>> Add an openzfs-2.2 compatibility file for the next release. Edon-R >>> support has been enabled for FreeBSD removing the need for different >>> FreeBSD and Linux files. Symlinks for the -linux and -freebsd names >>> are created for any scripts expecting that convention. Additionally, >>> a symlink for ubunutu-22.04 was added. Signed-off-by: Brian >>> Behlendorf <behlendorf1@llnl.gov> Closes #14833 >>> END QUOTE >>> >>> technically incorrect in that compatibility.d/openzfs-2.2-freebsd >>> should be distinct in content from compatibility.d/openzfs-2.2 so >>> that block cloning would not be enabled. >>> >>> >>>>>> Just curiousity on my part about the default completeness of >>>>>> openzfs-2.2 support, not an objection either way. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I haven't seen new issues with block cloning in the last few weeks >>>>> mentioned on the mailing lists. All known issues are fixed AFAIK. >>>>> But I can imagine that the risk+effect ratio of data corruption is >>>>> seen as a bit too high for a 14.0 release for this particular >>>>> feature. That does not diminish the rest of the completeness of >>>>> openzfs-2.2. >>>>> >>>>> NB: I'm not involved in developing openzfs or the decision making >>>>> in the release. Just repeating what I read on the lists. >>>> There was another block cloning fix in 14.0-RC4; see the commit log. >>>> Maybe there will be no more issues, but it seems that corner cases >>>> were >>>> still being found recently. >>> Looks like I'll stay at openzfs-2.1 pool features until there is >>> a release that no longer has the default status: >>> >>> 0 for sysctl vfs.zfs.bclone_enabled >>> >>> I use main [so: 15 now] but only enable openzfs-2.* pool features >>> supported by default on some FreeBSD release, that has an accurate >>> compatibility.d/openzfs-2.*-freebsd file. >>> >>> === >>> Mark Millard >>> marklmi at yahoo.com >>> >>> >> >
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?ba2e7bdc-68ba-4093-816a-2f0ea5bb6a07>