From: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Eric Whitney <enwlinux@gmail.com>
Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] ext4: fix xfstest generic/299 block validity failures
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 09:46:27 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20140218144627.GP26580@thunk.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140212154403.GB14520@thunk.org>
On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 10:44:03AM -0500, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 03:04:14PM -0500, Eric Whitney wrote:
> > Commit a115f749c1 (ext4: remove wait for unwritten extent conversion from
> > ext4_truncate) exposed a bug in ext4_ext_handle_uninitialized_extents().
> > It can be triggered by xfstest generic/299 when run on a test file
> > system created without a journal.
Hey Eric, I'm still seeing generic/299 failures in the nojournal case,
although instead of block validity errors, they are ENOSPC errors:
generic/299 192s ... [05:55:05][16439.429067] EXT4-fs warning (device vdc): ext4_convert_unwritten_extents:4725: inode #15: block 692480: len 32: ext4_ext_map_blocks returned -28
[16441.203606] EXT4-fs warning (device vdc): ext4_convert_unwritten_extents:4725: inode #14: block 258688: len 32: ext4_ext_map_blocks returned -28
[16441.508472] EXT4-fs warning (device vdc): ext4_convert_unwritten_extents:4725: inode #14: block 257792: len 32: ext4_ext_map_blocks returned -28
.
.
.
[16479.132762] EXT4-fs warning (device vdc): ext4_convert_unwritten_extents:4725: inode #15: block 739808: len 32: ext4_ext_map_blocks returned -28
[05:56:18] [failed, exit status 1] - output mismatch (see /root/xfstests/results//generic/299.out.bad)
--- tests/generic/299.out 2014-02-16 22:20:24.000000000 -0500
+++ /root/xfstests/results//generic/299.out.bad 2014-02-18 05:56:18.816438707 -0500
@@ -3,3 +3,5 @@
Run fio with random aio-dio pattern
Start fallocate/truncate loop
+failed: '/root/xfstests/bin/fio /tmp/22707.fio'
+(see /root/xfstests/results//generic/299.full for details)
...
(Run 'diff -u tests/generic/299.out /root/xfstests/results//generic/299.out.bad' to see the entire diff)
I'm also seeing a soft lockup warning with generic/299 when using a 1k
block:
generic/299 192s ... [08:26:39][25800.514234] INFO: task umount:655 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
[25800.515135] Not tainted 3.14.0-rc2 #1604
[25800.515764] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
[25800.516824] e1b9ddac 00000046 c0df1b40 e1b9c000 00000ddc 00000000 00000000 00001752
[25800.518038] c8c563d0 e1b9dd68 c0138b9f 00000000 e1b9dd98 c018fac4 0003fb49 00000000
[25800.519225] f63b2140 85ba09ee 00001752 85ba081b 00001752 00000001 f63b2140 00000000
[25800.520411] Call Trace:
[25800.520756] [<c0138b9f>] ? sched_clock+0x9/0xc
[25800.521395] [<c018fac4>] ? sched_clock_local+0x11/0xfa
[25800.522105] [<c018fdcd>] ? sched_clock_cpu+0xc6/0xe7
[25800.522794] [<c07b26f8>] schedule+0x63/0x65
[25800.523374] [<c07b1c4a>] schedule_timeout+0x1a/0x99
[25800.524046] [<c019e398>] ? mark_held_locks+0x5b/0x72
[25800.524777] [<c07b5623>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x27/0x36
[25800.525518] [<c019e4fd>] ? trace_hardirqs_on_caller+0x14e/0x169
[25800.526338] [<c019e523>] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0xb/0xd
[25800.527023] [<c07b5628>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irq+0x2c/0x36
[25800.527887] [<c07b2d2d>] __wait_for_common+0xc4/0xee
[25800.528586] [<c07b1c30>] ? ieee80211_assoc_success+0x95e/0x95e
[25800.529386] [<c018df97>] ? wake_up_state+0x11/0x11
[25800.530044] [<c07b2d70>] wait_for_completion+0x19/0x1c
[25800.530748] [<c02562bf>] writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xc2/0xcd
[25800.531507] [<c07b2c9a>] ? __wait_for_common+0x31/0xee
[25800.532222] [<c02562e8>] writeback_inodes_sb+0x1e/0x22
[25800.532931] [<c0259be5>] sync_filesystem+0x3b/0x8c
[25800.533594] [<c0238d56>] generic_shutdown_super+0x22/0xcd
[25800.534351] [<c0238f9f>] kill_block_super+0x22/0x63
[25800.535026] [<c0239188>] deactivate_locked_super+0x25/0x42
[25800.535788] [<c02395cb>] deactivate_super+0x31/0x34
[25800.536462] [<c024e235>] mntput_no_expire+0xd5/0xf1
[25800.537134] [<c024efbd>] SYSC_umount+0x283/0x29a
[25800.537793] [<c024f0ac>] SyS_oldumount+0x1f/0x21
[25800.538590] [<c07bbec6>] sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x38
[25800.539330] 1 lock held by umount/655:
[25800.539864] #0: (&type->s_umount_key#19){++++++}, at: [<c02395c4>] deactivate_super+0x2a/0x34
[08:31:50] 311s
Have you seen either of these in your testing?
Thanks,
- Ted
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-02-18 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-02-10 20:04 [PATCH] ext4: fix xfstest generic/299 block validity failures Eric Whitney
2014-02-12 15:44 ` Theodore Ts'o
2014-02-18 14:46 ` Theodore Ts'o [this message]
2014-02-18 21:36 ` Eric Whitney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20140218144627.GP26580@thunk.org \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=enwlinux@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.