On 23/02/2021 18:20, Steven Davies wrote:

On 2021-02-23 14:30, David Sterba wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Feb 23, 2021 at 09:43:04AM +0000, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:

quoted

On 23/02/2021 10:13, Johannes Thumshirn wrote:

quoted

On 22/02/2021 21:07, Steven Davies wrote:

[+CC Anand ]

quoted

Booted my system with kernel 5.11.0 vanilla with the first time and received this:

BTRFS info (device nvme0n1p2): has skinny extents
BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): device total_bytes should be at most 964757028864 but found
964770336768
BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): failed to read chunk tree: -22

Booting with 5.10.12 has no issues.

# btrfs filesystem usage /
Overall:
     Device size:                 898.51GiB
     Device allocated:            620.06GiB
     Device unallocated:          278.45GiB
     Device missing:                  0.00B
     Used:                        616.58GiB
     Free (estimated):            279.94GiB      (min: 140.72GiB)
     Data ratio:                       1.00
     Metadata ratio:                   2.00
     Global reserve:              512.00MiB      (used: 0.00B)

Data,single: Size:568.00GiB, Used:566.51GiB (99.74%)
    /dev/nvme0n1p2        568.00GiB

Metadata,DUP: Size:26.00GiB, Used:25.03GiB (96.29%)
    /dev/nvme0n1p2         52.00GiB

System,DUP: Size:32.00MiB, Used:80.00KiB (0.24%)
    /dev/nvme0n1p2         64.00MiB

Unallocated:
    /dev/nvme0n1p2        278.45GiB

# parted -l
Model: Sabrent Rocket Q (nvme)
Disk /dev/nvme0n1: 1000GB
Sector size (logical/physical): 512B/512B
Partition Table: gpt
Disk Flags:

Number  Start   End     Size    File system     Name  Flags
  1      1049kB  1075MB  1074MB  fat32                 boot, esp
  2      1075MB  966GB   965GB   btrfs
  3      966GB   1000GB  34.4GB  linux-swap(v1)        swap

What has changed in 5.11 which might cause this?

This line:

quoted

BTRFS info (device nvme0n1p2): has skinny extents
BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): device total_bytes should be at most 964757028864 but found
964770336768
BTRFS error (device nvme0n1p2): failed to read chunk tree: -22

comes from 3a160a933111 ("btrfs: drop never met disk total bytes check in verify_one_dev_extent")
which went into v5.11-rc1.

IIUIC the device item's total_bytes and the block device inode's size are off by 12M, so the check
introduced in the above commit refuses to mount the FS.

Anand any idea?

OK this is getting interesting:
btrfs-porgs sets the device's total_bytes at mkfs time and obtains it 
from ioctl(..., BLKGETSIZE64, ...);

BLKGETSIZE64 does:
return put_u64(argp, i_size_read(bdev->bd_inode));

The new check in read_one_dev() does:

               u64 max_total_bytes = 
i_size_read(device->bdev->bd_inode);

               if (device->total_bytes > max_total_bytes) {
                       btrfs_err(fs_info,
                       "device total_bytes should be at most %llu but 
found %llu",
                                 max_total_bytes, 
device->total_bytes);
                       return -EINVAL;


So the bdev inode's i_size must have changed between mkfs and mount.

That's likely, this is my development/testing machine and I've changed 
partitions (and btrfs RAID levels) around more than once since mkfs 
time. I can't remember if or how I've modified the fs to take account of 
this.

quoted

quoted

Steven, can you please run:
blockdev --getsize64 /dev/nvme0n1p2

# blockdev --getsize64 /dev/nvme0n1p2
964757028864

quoted

The kernel side verifies that the physical device size is not smaller
than the size recorded in the device item, so that makes sense. I was a
bit doubtful about the check but it can detect real problems or point
out some weirdness.

Agreed. It's useful, but somewhat painful when it refuses to mount a 
root device after reboot.

quoted

The 12M delta is not big, but I'd expect that for a physical device it
should not change. Another possibility would be some kind of rounding 
to
a reasonable number, like 16M.

Is there a simple way to fix this partition so that btrfs and the 
partition table agree on its size?

Unless someone's yelling at me that this is a bad advice (David, Anand?),
I'd go for: 
btrfs filesystem resize max / 

I've personally never shrinked a device but looking at the code it will
write the blockdevice's inode i_size to the device extents, and possibly
relocate data.

Hope I didn't give a bad advice,
Johannes