From: David Greaves <david@dgreaves.com>
To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
Cc: David Chinner <dgc@sgi.com>,
LinuxRaid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>,
xfs@oss.sgi.com,
"'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md array
Date: Sat, 17 May 2008 15:46:50 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <482EEFDA.50101@dgreaves.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <482DD981.5070004@sandeen.net>
Eric Sandeen wrote:
> David Greaves wrote:
>> I just attempted a kernel upgrade from 2.6.20.7 to 2.6.25.3 and it no longer
>> mounts my xfs filesystem.
>>
>> I bisected it to around
>> a67d7c5f5d25d0b13a4dfb182697135b014fa478
>> [XFS] Move platform specific mount option parse out of core XFS code
>
> around that... not exactly? That commit should have been largely a code
> move, which is not to say that it can't contain a bug... :)
I got to within 4 on the bisect and my xfs partition containing the kernel src
and the bisect history blew up telling me that files were directories and then
exploding in a heap of lost+found/ fragments. Quite, erm, "interesting" really.
At that point I decided I was close enough to ask for advice, looked at the
commits and took this one as the most likely to cause the bug :)
But, thinking about it, I can decode the kernel extraversion tags in /boot. From
that I think my bounds were:
40ebd81d1a7635cf92a59c387a599fce4863206b
[XFS] Use kernel-supplied "roundup_pow_of_two" for simplicity
and:
3ed6526441053d79b85d206b14d75125e6f51cc2
[XFS] Implement fallocate.
so those bound:
[XFS] Remove the BPCSHIFT and NB* based macros from XFS.
[XFS] Remove bogus assert
[XFS] optimize XFS_IS_REALTIME_INODE w/o realtime config
[XFS] Move platform specific mount option parse out of core XFS code
and just glancing through the patches I didn't see any changes that looked
likely in the others...
>
>> I have a RAID5 array with partitions:
>>
>> Partition Table for /dev/md_d0
>>
>> First Last
>> # Type Sector Sector Offset Length Filesystem Type (ID) Flag
>> -- ------- ----------- ----------- ------ ----------- -------------------- ----
>> 1 Primary 0 2500288279 4 2500288280 Linux (83) None
>> 2 Primary 2500288280 2500483583 0 195304 Non-FS data (DA) None
>>
>>
>> when I attempt to mount /media:
>> /dev/md_d0p1 /media xfs rw,nobarrier,noatime,logdev=/dev/md_d0p2,allocsize=512m 0 0
>
> mythbox? :)
Hey - we test some interesting corner cases... :)
My *wife* just told *me* to buy, and I quote "No more than 10" 1Tb Samsung
drives... I decided 5 would be plenty.
> Hm, so it's the external log size that it doesn't much like...
Yep - I noticed that - and ISTR that Neil has been fiddling in the md
partitioning code over the last 6 months or so.
I wondered where it got the larger figure from and if, somehow, md was changing
the partition size somehow...
>> I get:
>> md_d0: p1 p2
>> XFS mounting filesystem md_d0p1
>> attempt to access beyond end of device
>> md_d0p2: rw=0, want=195311, limit=195304
>
> what does /proc/partitions say about md_d0p1 and p2? Is it different
> between the older & newer kernel?
2.6.20.7 (good)
254 0 1250241792 md_d0
254 1 1250144138 md_d0p1
254 2 97652 md_d0p2
2.6.25.3 (bad)
254 0 1250241792 md_d0
254 1 1250144138 md_d0p1
254 2 97652 md_d0p2
2.6.25.4 (bad)
254 0 1250241792 md_d0
254 1 1250144138 md_d0p1
254 2 97652 md_d0p2
So nothing obvious there then...
>
> What does xfs_info /mount/point say about the filesystem when you mount
> it under the older kernel? Or... if you can't mount it,
teak:~# xfs_info /media/
meta-data=/dev/md_d0p1 isize=256 agcount=32, agsize=9766751 blks
= sectsz=512 attr=0
data = bsize=4096 blocks=312536032, imaxpct=25
= sunit=0 swidth=0 blks
naming =version 2 bsize=4096
log =external bsize=4096 blocks=24413, version=2
= sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=0
realtime =none extsz=65536 blocks=0, rtextents=0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-05-17 14:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 25+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-05-16 17:11 Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md array David Greaves
2008-05-16 17:16 ` Justin Piszcz
2008-05-16 18:05 ` David Greaves
2008-05-16 18:35 ` Oliver Pinter
2008-05-17 14:48 ` David Greaves
2008-05-17 15:20 ` David Greaves
2008-05-16 18:59 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-17 14:46 ` David Greaves [this message]
2008-05-17 15:15 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-17 19:10 ` Mechanism to safely force repair of single md stripe w/o hurting data integrity of file system David Lethe
2008-05-17 19:10 ` David Lethe
2008-05-17 19:29 ` Peter Rabbitson
2008-05-17 20:26 ` Guy Watkins
2008-05-17 20:26 ` Guy Watkins
2008-05-26 11:17 ` Jan Engelhardt
2008-05-19 2:54 ` Neil Brown
2008-05-19 2:54 ` Neil Brown
2008-05-17 23:18 ` Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md array Eric Sandeen
2008-05-18 5:23 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-18 8:48 ` David Greaves
2008-05-18 15:38 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-24 13:33 ` RFI for 2.6.25.5 : " David Greaves
2008-05-24 13:52 ` Willy Tarreau
2008-05-24 15:39 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-05-19 3:46 ` Timothy Shimmin
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=482EEFDA.50101@dgreaves.com \
--to=david@dgreaves.com \
--cc=dgc@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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.