Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756809AbYGNHaR (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:30:17 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1755108AbYGNHaE (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:30:04 -0400 Received: from relay2.sgi.com ([192.48.171.30]:37375 "EHLO relay.sgi.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755071AbYGNHaD (ORCPT ); Mon, 14 Jul 2008 03:30:03 -0400 Message-ID: <487B019B.9090401@sgi.com> Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:34:51 +1000 From: Lachlan McIlroy Reply-To: lachlan@sgi.com User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080421) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Mikael Abrahamsson CC: Dave Chinner , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com Subject: Re: xfs bug in 2.6.26-rc9 References: <20080711084248.GU29319@disturbed> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2104 Lines: 52 Mikael Abrahamsson wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> That aside, what was the assert failure reported prior to the oops? >> i.e. paste the lines in the log before the ---[ cut here ]--- line? >> One of them will start with 'Assertion failed:', I think.... > > These ones? > > Jul 8 04:44:56 via kernel: [554197.888008] Assertion failed: whichfork > == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c, > line: 5879 > Jul 9 03:25:21 via kernel: [42940.748007] Assertion failed: whichfork > == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c, > line: 5879 xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED); if (whichfork == XFS_DATA_FORK && (ip->i_delayed_blks || ip->i_size > ip->i_d.di_size)) { /* xfs_fsize_t last_byte = xfs_file_last_byte(ip); */ error = xfs_flush_pages(ip, (xfs_off_t)0, -1, 0, FI_REMAPF); if (error) { xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED); return error; } } ASSERT(whichfork == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0); This is a race between xfs_fsr and a mmap write. xfs_fsr acquires the iolock and then flushes the file and because it has the iolock it doesn't expect any new delayed allocations to occur. A mmap write can allocate delayed allocations without acquiring the iolock so is able to get in after the flush but before the ASSERT. > > I'll happily rebuild the kernel without the debug option and do > xfs_check to weed out any possible logical problem with the volume, if > you don't need any further information from the current state of my volume. > > I should also say that this assert failue happened two nights in a row > so I guess it's fairly reproducible (didn't happen on the 10th, and > today, the 11th it seems to have panic:ed around 03:30 (I start the > defragmentation via cron at 03:00) which I think is related. > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/