btrfs: qgroup: Fix qgroup accounting when creating snapshot
Current btrfs qgroup design implies a requirement that after calling btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() there must be a commit root switch. Normally this is OK, as btrfs_qgroup_accounting_extents() is only called inside btrfs_commit_transaction() just be commit_cowonly_roots(). However there is a exception at create_pending_snapshot(), which will call btrfs_qgroup_account_extents() but no any commit root switch. In case of creating a snapshot whose parent root is itself (create a snapshot of fs tree), it will corrupt qgroup by the following trace: (skipped unrelated data) ====== btrfs_qgroup_account_extent: bytenr = 29786112, num_bytes = 16384, nr_old_roots = 0, nr_new_roots = 1 qgroup_update_counters: qgid = 5, cur_old_count = 0, cur_new_count = 1, rfer = 0, excl = 0 qgroup_update_counters: qgid = 5, cur_old_count = 0, cur_new_count = 1, rfer = 16384, excl = 16384 btrfs_qgroup_account_extent: bytenr = 29786112, num_bytes = 16384, nr_old_roots = 0, nr_new_roots = 0 ====== The problem here is in first qgroup_account_extent(), the nr_new_roots of the extent is 1, which means its reference got increased, and qgroup increased its rfer and excl. But at second qgroup_account_extent(), its reference got decreased, but between these two qgroup_account_extent(), there is no switch roots. This leads to the same nr_old_roots, and this extent just got ignored by qgroup, which means this extent is wrongly accounted. Fix it by call commit_cowonly_roots() after qgroup_account_extent() in create_pending_snapshot(), with needed preparation. Mark: I added a check at the top of qgroup_account_snapshot() to skip this code if qgroups are turned off. xfstest btrfs/122 exposes this problem. Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <quwenruo@cn.fujitsu.com> Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@fb.com> Signed-off-by: Mark Fasheh <mfasheh@suse.de> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>
Showing
Please register or sign in to comment