Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753311AbdCOSLw convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:11:52 -0400 Received: from Galois.linutronix.de ([146.0.238.70]:48985 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751172AbdCOSLu (ORCPT ); Wed, 15 Mar 2017 14:11:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2017 18:34:31 +0100 From: Sebastian Andrzej Siewior To: Nicholas Mc Guire Cc: linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: oops with 4.9.13-rt12 under mild load (and no rt-tasks active) Message-ID: <20170315173431.lpuoqsrte2qzyb5s@linutronix.de> References: <20170310194717.GE32625@osadl.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT In-Reply-To: <20170310194717.GE32625@osadl.at> User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170306 (1.8.0) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 3529 Lines: 76 On 2017-03-10 19:47:17 [+0000], Nicholas Mc Guire wrote: > > Hi ! Hello Nicholas, > [ 5329.000726] EXT4-fs (sda2): unable to read superblock > [ 5329.001648] EXT4-fs (sda2): unable to read superblock > [ 5329.002564] EXT4-fs (sda2): unable to read superblock > [ 5329.003584] FAT-fs (sda2): bogus number of reserved sectors > [ 5329.003588] FAT-fs (sda2): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem > [ 5329.004645] FAT-fs (sda2): bogus number of reserved sectors > [ 5329.004649] FAT-fs (sda2): Can't find a valid FAT filesystem > [ 5329.005561] isofs_fill_super: bread failed, dev=sda2, iso_blknum=16, block=32 This is probably just some random noise. Usually during kernel upgrade it will try to access all your partition and while doing this it will try various fs-drivers. So it can happen that it will complain that it can't mount sdaX with FAT while even if sdaX is swap and you don't use FAT at all. I wouldn't worry too much about this. > but sda2 is the Extended partition - sda5 is the swap and it is mounted. > > I´ll see if this is reproducible - unfortunately the v2 config was lost as > the files that seem to have been in buffer-cache are all 0 size (many of the compiled > files in the kernel tree are 0 size - the sources seem ok as it can be recompiled). > > Device Boot Start End Sectors Size Id Type > /dev/sda1 * 2048 470427647 470425600 224.3G 83 Linux > /dev/sda2 470429694 490348543 19918850 9.5G 5 Extended > /dev/sda5 470429696 490348543 19918848 9.5G 82 Linux swap / Solaris So sda1 is with EXT4 and exploded? So besides files with size 0 you have no further damage? > [ 9007.810069] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > [ 9007.810071] kernel BUG at fs/inode.c:508! … > [ 9007.810107] [] ext4_clear_inode+0x15/0x80 > [ 9007.810109] [] ext4_evict_inode+0x69/0x3d0 > [ 9007.810111] [] evict+0xc0/0x190 > [ 9007.810112] [] dispose_list+0x34/0x40 > [ 9007.810114] [] prune_icache_sb+0x46/0x60 > [ 9007.810117] [] super_cache_scan+0x14c/0x1a0 > [ 9007.810121] [] shrink_slab.part.52.constprop.73+0x1b5/0x250 > [ 9007.810124] [] shrink_node+0x5c/0x190 > [ 9007.810126] [] kswapd+0x2d1/0x5c0 > [ 9007.810128] [] ? node_reclaim+0x200/0x200 > [ 9007.810132] [] ? call_usermodehelper_exec_async+0x148/0x160 > [ 9007.810135] [] kthread+0xd7/0xf0 > [ 9007.810137] [] ? kthread_park+0x60/0x60 > [ 9007.810139] [] ? umh_complete+0x20/0x20 > [ 9007.810143] [] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30 At some point your system decided, that it needs to make room for some fresh memory so it kicked kswapd. That one invoked shrink_slab() which is something you can also trigger via echo 2 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches At this point it tried to free memory. It managed to come across an ext4 inode which was not yet ready for clean up. This "exceptional" counter is used by DAX, shmem and shadow. I assume you don't use DAX so that leaves us with shmem and shadow. > Aside from hoping that I get this a second time - is there any other meaningful > info I could provide ? I've been looking at this for a while now. I try to come up tomorrow. > Has anyone seen 4.9.13-rt12 oopses related to ext4 or vfs in general ? nope, first time I see something like this. > thx! > hofrat Sebastian