[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (2 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (2 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4

[Bug 13374] New: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374

           Summary: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
           Product: File System
           Version: 2.5
    Kernel Version: 2.6.30-rc6
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
              Tree: Mainline
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: P1
         Component: ReiserFS
        AssignedTo: reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org
        ReportedBy: rjw@sisk.pl
            Blocks: 13070
        Regression: Yes


Subject    : 2.6.30-rc6: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter  : Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date       : 2009-05-23 8:52
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4

This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.29.  Please don't
close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

Re: [Bug 13374] New: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Mat]

> Subject    : 2.6.30-rc6: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
> Submitter  : Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel <at> t-online.de>
> Date       : 2009-05-23 8:52
> References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
> 
> This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.29.  Please don't
> close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.
> 

I experienced this problem also with 2.6.30-rc2-zen0 and don't know why no body
reacted or replied to that message:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.file-systems.reiserfs.general/22225

it wasn't meant to be a troll attempt or something similar :\

anyways - it's  nice to have it in bugzilla now

I currently can't provide any further information from tests since the catalyst
graphics driver or xf86-video-ati prevent me from upgrading to 2.6.30-rc*
kernels (one doesn't support >2.6.28 - the other only produces black screen) and
working productively with this box on newer kernels ...

so unfortunately I can't start copying big amounts of files and watch dmesg /
debug output ... -> my graphics card would overheat ;(

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (8 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (8 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:37:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
> 
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
> (either way).
> 
> 
> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
> Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
> Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
> Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (8 days old)
> References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
> 
> 


Trenton D. Adams has reported something very similar for -rc3:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

Someone holds the j_commit_mutex but never release it...

(Adding Jeff Mahoney in cc )

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Frederic Weisbecker]

On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:37:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of recent regressions.
> 
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
> (either way).
> 
> 
> Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
> Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
> Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
> Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (8 days old)
> References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
> 
> 


Trenton D. Adams has reported something very similar for -rc3:

http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

Someone holds the j_commit_mutex but never release it...

(Adding Jeff Mahoney in cc )

[Bug 13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374





--- Comment #1 from Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>  2009-06-01 20:35:12 ---
On Sunday 31 May 2009, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> On Sat, May 30, 2009 at 09:37:36PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> > of recent regressions.
> > 
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
> > (either way).
> > 
> > 
> > Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
> > Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
> > Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
> > Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (8 days old)
> > References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
> > 
> 
> Trenton D. Adams has reported something very similar for -rc3:
> 
> http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389
> 
> Someone holds the j_commit_mutex but never release it...

References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug 13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[bugzilla-daemon]

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374


Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |jeffm@suse.com
         AssignedTo|reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel. |jeffm@suse.com
                   |org                         |




--- Comment #2 from Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>  2009-06-05 18:25:47 ---
Can you capture a sysrq+t when this is occuring? The lock is properly released,
but I have a hunch that another thread is waiting on ordered writeback.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug.

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (16 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of recent regressions.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
from 2.6.29.  Please verify if it still should be listed and let me know
(either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (16 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (37 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (37 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (45 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (45 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (65 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (72 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Frédéric Weisbecker]

Harald,

Does it still happen with 2.6.31-rc5 ?

If so, do you have further informations that could help us reproducing it?

Thanks,
Frederic.

2009/8/2 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw-KKrjLPT3xs0@public.gmane.org>:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
> be listed and let me know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
> Subject         : reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
> Submitter       : Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
> Date            : 2009-05-23 8:52 (72 days old)
> References      : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
>                  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Frédéric Weisbecker]

Harald,

Does it still happen with 2.6.31-rc5 ?

If so, do you have further informations that could help us reproducing it?

Thanks,
Frederic.

2009/8/2 Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl>:
> This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
> of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.
>
> The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
> be listed and let me know (either way).
>
>
> Bug-Entry       : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
> Subject         : reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
> Submitter       : Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
> Date            : 2009-05-23 8:52 (72 days old)
> References      : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
>                  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389
>
>
> --
> 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/
>

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Harald Dunkel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 344 bytes --]

Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
> Harald,
> 
> Does it still happen with 2.6.31-rc5 ?
> 

Using 2.6.30.x kernels (x>=0) I haven't seen this problem anymore.
If it is still in, then it seems to be very hard to reproduce.

As suggested I am moving to 2.6.31-rc5. I will mail immediately if
the problem comes back.


Regards

Harri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Harald Dunkel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 344 bytes --]

Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
> Harald,
> 
> Does it still happen with 2.6.31-rc5 ?
> 

Using 2.6.30.x kernels (x>=0) I haven't seen this problem anymore.
If it is still in, then it seems to be very hard to reproduce.

As suggested I am moving to 2.6.31-rc5. I will mail immediately if
the problem comes back.


Regards

Harri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 03 August 2009, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
> > Harald,
> > 
> > Does it still happen with 2.6.31-rc5 ?
> > 
> 
> Using 2.6.30.x kernels (x>=0) I haven't seen this problem anymore.
> If it is still in, then it seems to be very hard to reproduce.
> 
> As suggested I am moving to 2.6.31-rc5. I will mail immediately if
> the problem comes back.

Please let us know either way.

Best,
Rafael

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Monday 03 August 2009, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Frédéric Weisbecker wrote:
> > Harald,
> > 
> > Does it still happen with 2.6.31-rc5 ?
> > 
> 
> Using 2.6.30.x kernels (x>=0) I haven't seen this problem anymore.
> If it is still in, then it seems to be very hard to reproduce.
> 
> As suggested I am moving to 2.6.31-rc5. I will mail immediately if
> the problem comes back.

Please let us know either way.

Best,
Rafael

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel-zqRNUXuvxA0b1SvskN2V4Q@public.gmane.org>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (79 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

[Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

This message has been generated automatically as a part of a report
of regressions introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.

The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
introduced between 2.6.29 and 2.6.30.  Please verify if it still should
be listed and let me know (either way).


Bug-Entry	: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13374
Subject		: reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs
Submitter	: Harald Dunkel <harald.dunkel@t-online.de>
Date		: 2009-05-23 8:52 (79 days old)
References	: http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124306880410811&w=4
		  http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/5/29/389

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Harald Dunkel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 296 bytes --]

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> 
> Please let us know either way.
> 

I am running 2.6.31-rc5 for amd64 on 2 systems. By now I haven't
seen this problem on the new kernel yet, but since I saw it only
once for an older kernel I cannot say whether it is really gone.


Regards

Harri




[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > Please let us know either way.
> > 
> 
> I am running 2.6.31-rc5 for amd64 on 2 systems. By now I haven't
> seen this problem on the new kernel yet, but since I saw it only
> once for an older kernel I cannot say whether it is really gone.

I closed the bug as not reproducible.

Please go to the Bugzilla and reopen the bug entry if you see it again.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Wednesday 12 August 2009, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > 
> > Please let us know either way.
> > 
> 
> I am running 2.6.31-rc5 for amd64 on 2 systems. By now I haven't
> seen this problem on the new kernel yet, but since I saw it only
> once for an older kernel I cannot say whether it is really gone.

I closed the bug as not reproducible.

Please go to the Bugzilla and reopen the bug entry if you see it again.

Thanks,
Rafael

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Harald Dunkel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1685 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

I haven't seen the 120secs timeout yet, but using 2.6.31-rc5 there _are_
some delays that I am not sure of. Sometimes it takes about 30 secs till
the XWindow server comes up, for example. (I use xinit on the command line
at login. / and /home are both reiserfs.) For 2.6.30.4 and older I haven't
seen this delay yet, AFAIR.

Most recent event: I tried to format a 4 GByte USB stick with reiserfs.
Here is the screen output:

	# device=/dev/sdf
	# parted $device mklabel gpt
	Warning: The existing disk label on /dev/sdf will be destroyed and
	all data on this disk will be lost. Do you want to continue?
	Yes/No? Yes
	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

	# parted -- $device mkpart primary 0s -1s
	Warning: You requested a partition from 0.00B to 4127MB.
	The closest location we can manage is 17.4kB to 4127MB.
	Is this still acceptable to you?
	Yes/No? Yes
	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

	# mkreiserfs -l usbstick /dev/sdf1
	mkreiserfs 3.6.21 (2009 www.namesys.com)
	:
	:
	UUID: 154d66cc-02ac-4979-9a39-163e3cf80623
	LABEL: usbstick
	ATTENTION: YOU SHOULD REBOOT AFTER FDISK!
	        ALL DATA WILL BE LOST ON '/dev/sdf1'!
	Continue (y/n):y
	Initializing journal - 0%....20%....40%....60%....80%....100%
	Syncing..ok
	ReiserFS is successfully created on /dev/sdf1.

It took about 2 to 3 minutes till the "ok" in the "Syncing" line
was shown. /var/log/messages was silent. When I tried to reproduce
the delay it was gone, of course.

Since I would like to try 2.6.31-rc6 anyway, maybe you could post
some hints about what debugging options to set in the config file?


Many thanx

Harri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Harald Dunkel]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1685 bytes --]

Hi Rafael,

I haven't seen the 120secs timeout yet, but using 2.6.31-rc5 there _are_
some delays that I am not sure of. Sometimes it takes about 30 secs till
the XWindow server comes up, for example. (I use xinit on the command line
at login. / and /home are both reiserfs.) For 2.6.30.4 and older I haven't
seen this delay yet, AFAIR.

Most recent event: I tried to format a 4 GByte USB stick with reiserfs.
Here is the screen output:

	# device=/dev/sdf
	# parted $device mklabel gpt
	Warning: The existing disk label on /dev/sdf will be destroyed and
	all data on this disk will be lost. Do you want to continue?
	Yes/No? Yes
	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

	# parted -- $device mkpart primary 0s -1s
	Warning: You requested a partition from 0.00B to 4127MB.
	The closest location we can manage is 17.4kB to 4127MB.
	Is this still acceptable to you?
	Yes/No? Yes
	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.

	# mkreiserfs -l usbstick /dev/sdf1
	mkreiserfs 3.6.21 (2009 www.namesys.com)
	:
	:
	UUID: 154d66cc-02ac-4979-9a39-163e3cf80623
	LABEL: usbstick
	ATTENTION: YOU SHOULD REBOOT AFTER FDISK!
	        ALL DATA WILL BE LOST ON '/dev/sdf1'!
	Continue (y/n):y
	Initializing journal - 0%....20%....40%....60%....80%....100%
	Syncing..ok
	ReiserFS is successfully created on /dev/sdf1.

It took about 2 to 3 minutes till the "ok" in the "Syncing" line
was shown. /var/log/messages was silent. When I tried to reproduce
the delay it was gone, of course.

Since I would like to try 2.6.31-rc6 anyway, maybe you could post
some hints about what debugging options to set in the config file?


Many thanx

Harri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 260 bytes --]

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> I haven't seen the 120secs timeout yet, but using 2.6.31-rc5 there _are_
> some delays that I am not sure of. Sometimes it takes about 30 secs till
> the XWindow server comes up, for example. (I use xinit on the command line
> at login. / and /home are both reiserfs.) For 2.6.30.4 and older I haven't
> seen this delay yet, AFAIR.
> 
> Most recent event: I tried to format a 4 GByte USB stick with reiserfs.
> Here is the screen output:
> 
> 	# device=/dev/sdf
> 	# parted $device mklabel gpt
> 	Warning: The existing disk label on /dev/sdf will be destroyed and
> 	all data on this disk will be lost. Do you want to continue?
> 	Yes/No? Yes
> 	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.
> 
> 	# parted -- $device mkpart primary 0s -1s
> 	Warning: You requested a partition from 0.00B to 4127MB.
> 	The closest location we can manage is 17.4kB to 4127MB.
> 	Is this still acceptable to you?
> 	Yes/No? Yes
> 	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.
> 
> 	# mkreiserfs -l usbstick /dev/sdf1
> 	mkreiserfs 3.6.21 (2009 www.namesys.com)
> 	:
> 	:
> 	UUID: 154d66cc-02ac-4979-9a39-163e3cf80623
> 	LABEL: usbstick
> 	ATTENTION: YOU SHOULD REBOOT AFTER FDISK!
> 	        ALL DATA WILL BE LOST ON '/dev/sdf1'!
> 	Continue (y/n):y
> 	Initializing journal - 0%....20%....40%....60%....80%....100%
> 	Syncing..ok
> 	ReiserFS is successfully created on /dev/sdf1.
> 
> It took about 2 to 3 minutes till the "ok" in the "Syncing" line
> was shown. /var/log/messages was silent. When I tried to reproduce
> the delay it was gone, of course.

Thanks for the update.

> Since I would like to try 2.6.31-rc6 anyway, maybe you could post
> some hints about what debugging options to set in the config file?

Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with debugging issues of this kind.

Perhaps Tejun will have some hints (CC added)?

Best,
Rafael

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Rafael J. Wysocki]

On Tuesday 18 August 2009, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Hi Rafael,
> 
> I haven't seen the 120secs timeout yet, but using 2.6.31-rc5 there _are_
> some delays that I am not sure of. Sometimes it takes about 30 secs till
> the XWindow server comes up, for example. (I use xinit on the command line
> at login. / and /home are both reiserfs.) For 2.6.30.4 and older I haven't
> seen this delay yet, AFAIR.
> 
> Most recent event: I tried to format a 4 GByte USB stick with reiserfs.
> Here is the screen output:
> 
> 	# device=/dev/sdf
> 	# parted $device mklabel gpt
> 	Warning: The existing disk label on /dev/sdf will be destroyed and
> 	all data on this disk will be lost. Do you want to continue?
> 	Yes/No? Yes
> 	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.
> 
> 	# parted -- $device mkpart primary 0s -1s
> 	Warning: You requested a partition from 0.00B to 4127MB.
> 	The closest location we can manage is 17.4kB to 4127MB.
> 	Is this still acceptable to you?
> 	Yes/No? Yes
> 	Information: You may need to update /etc/fstab.
> 
> 	# mkreiserfs -l usbstick /dev/sdf1
> 	mkreiserfs 3.6.21 (2009 www.namesys.com)
> 	:
> 	:
> 	UUID: 154d66cc-02ac-4979-9a39-163e3cf80623
> 	LABEL: usbstick
> 	ATTENTION: YOU SHOULD REBOOT AFTER FDISK!
> 	        ALL DATA WILL BE LOST ON '/dev/sdf1'!
> 	Continue (y/n):y
> 	Initializing journal - 0%....20%....40%....60%....80%....100%
> 	Syncing..ok
> 	ReiserFS is successfully created on /dev/sdf1.
> 
> It took about 2 to 3 minutes till the "ok" in the "Syncing" line
> was shown. /var/log/messages was silent. When I tried to reproduce
> the delay it was gone, of course.

Thanks for the update.

> Since I would like to try 2.6.31-rc6 anyway, maybe you could post
> some hints about what debugging options to set in the config file?

Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with debugging issues of this kind.

Perhaps Tejun will have some hints (CC added)?

Best,
Rafael

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with debugging issues of
> this kind.  Perhaps Tejun will have some hints (CC added)?

Eh... I don't have much experience either and from the reported
information I can't tell much.  The question would be what the thread
which is holding the lock was doing and whether it traces down to IO
layer.  So, as Jeff said, we'll need sysrq-t output to tell what's
going on.  The current trace only reveals the victim not the offender.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun

Re: [Bug #13374] reiserfs blocked for more than 120secs

[Tejun Heo]

Hello,

Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> Unfortunately, I don't have much experience with debugging issues of
> this kind.  Perhaps Tejun will have some hints (CC added)?

Eh... I don't have much experience either and from the reported
information I can't tell much.  The question would be what the thread
which is holding the lock was doing and whether it traces down to IO
layer.  So, as Jeff said, we'll need sysrq-t output to tell what's
going on.  The current trace only reveals the victim not the offender.

Thanks.

-- 
tejun