Bug 80241 - recursive directory search misses directories
recursive directory search misses directories
Product: Red Hat Public Beta
Classification: Retired
Component: kernel (Show other bugs)
i386 Linux
medium Severity high
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Stephen Tweedie
Brian Brock
Depends On:
Blocks: 79578
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2002-12-23 02:48 EST by Alexandre Oliva
Modified: 2007-04-18 12:49 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2003-01-15 16:56:02 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Alexandre Oliva 2002-12-23 02:48:05 EST
From Bugzilla Helper:
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.2.1) Gecko/20021218

Description of problem:
I've enabled dir_index and run fsck -fD on a large filesystem of one of my
boxes, then did some rsync -acnv testing against backup copies on three other
hosts in my network.

It turned out that rsync, without -n, would have removed the contents of some
directories in the remote machines, which means rsync running on the local
machine missed them.  It missed exactly 3 directories, one per machine, from a
list of 660k files in 38k directories, totalling 17GB.

I found 3 occurrences of the following message in /var/log/messages:
kernel: VFS: brelse: Trying to free free buffer.  Their timestamps seem to match
the relative position of the directories in the entire tree, so I'm inclined to
believe they're related.  I haven't tried to disable dir_index and repeat the
test, but I've seen these messages in the console of the other machines (some of
which are running the beta too, and also underwent dir_index filesystem
conversion), and it seems to always happen when the machine is under high disk load.

It doesn't seem like it's actually losing any files in the source tree: if I
look again, the files and directories are still there, they just weren't
(apparently) reported to rsync.

In case it matters, these workloads were all on ext3 filesystems on logical
volumes of volume groups built out of 2 or 4 physical volumes, depending on the
machine.  The logical volumes were striped by hand, i.e., consecutive 4MB
logical extents live in different physical volumes, in disks.

BTW, with this hand-striped LVM, the kernel 2.4.18 wouldn't be very efficient
when reading large files, since it wouldn't read from all stripes in parallel,
whereas the kernel seems to do it.  Now I have top performance while copying
large files without sacrificing the most common workloads that benefit from
large extents (as opposed to small RAID0 blocks).

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

How reproducible:

Steps to Reproduce:
1.Enable the dir_index option in an ext3 filesystem, and fsck -fD it
2.Have an exact copy elsewhere of a relatively large tree with lots of directories 
3.Run rsync -arvHSpltcn --delete to try to get the trees in sync, redirecting
the output to a file

Actual Results:  You may get some `deleting ...' messages, that are quite
unexpected.  Watch out for `brelse: Trying to free free buffer' messages in the
console too.

Expected Results:  Since the trees were originally identical, no files should be
going away.

Additional info:

I'm not sure -c is actually needed to make the disk load high enough to trigger
the bug (if it's actually load-related).  My nightly backups will probably tell.

It's possible that something as simple as du -ks or find can trigger the bug. 
I'm investigating.

I've seen the message on both i686 and athlon uniprocessor boxes, each one
running the default kernel.  Would we get more info from these messages using a
debug kernel?
Comment 1 Alexandre Oliva 2002-12-23 03:55:40 EST
Ok, I've been able to duplicate the problem with something as simple as several
`find . | wc -l' running in parallel, and it looks more and more like the kernel
messages are related with missing files or directories in a traversal, since the
end result is only different when the messages actually show up in

It seems to be critical to have several processes concurrently bringing in
directory information from disk.  If the inodes and directory contents all fit
in memory, I can't seem to duplicate the problem.
Comment 2 Alexandre Oliva 2002-12-23 05:53:16 EST
As suspected, after disabling the dir_index option in the ext3 filesystem, I
couldn't duplicate the problem any longer.

It appears that the errors logged by the kernel, or related problems, may turn a
filesystem non-unmountable.  I had to reboot the machine in order to disable the
dir_index option in the filesystems, because umount would claim it was busy, but
neither lsof nor /proc/mounts mentioned anything that might prevent the
filesystem from being unmounted.
Comment 3 Stephen Tweedie 2003-01-07 15:04:51 EST
Alexandre, what exactly was your recipe for reproducing this?  There's one
possible problem I'm aware of which might result in things missing from readdir,
but that can only happen on a filesystem which is being actively modified
(specifically, one in which we're growing a directory from non-indexed to
indexed while it is being read.)
Comment 4 Alexandre Oliva 2003-01-07 15:20:03 EST
Runing several `find . | wc -l'  in parallel in a relatively large directory
tree (i.e., one that wouldn't entirely fit in the cache) in an otherwise
inactive filesystem would give me the problem.
Comment 5 Chris Ricker 2003-01-14 11:32:33 EST
I'm seeing something which might be related. If I do lots of stupid recursive
disk access

# find / -exec file {} \;

or similar, I get

Jan 14 16:26:40 station6 kernel: VFS: brelse: Trying to free free buffer

fairly regularly.
Comment 6 Stephen Tweedie 2003-01-15 16:56:02 EST
htree has proven insufficiently stable for now; it has been backed out of our
current test kernels.
Comment 7 Nathan G. Grennan 2003-01-15 17:01:27 EST
I have been hearing you say this a fair ammount lately. Where does this put beta
users who have ext3 htree filesystems? Are there any problems with using a
non-htree patched kernel with a htree enabled filesystem?
Comment 8 Stephen Tweedie 2003-01-15 17:06:16 EST
No, there should be no problems at all.  The htree indexes just look like empty
space to non-htree kernels, and if a non-htree kernel modifies a directory it
will clear any htree flags on the dir, so booting to an htree kernel later on
won't cause problems either.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.