Re: Call trace in ext4_es_lru_add on 3.10 stable

[Stefan Priebe <s.priebe@profihost.ag>]

Am 26.11.2014 21:26, schrieb Jan Kara:
> On Wed 26-11-14 16:11:37, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
>> Am 26.11.2014 um 09:25 schrieb Jan Kara:
>>>    Hi,
>>>
>>> On Wed 26-11-14 09:06:43, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
>>>> i'm still getting a lot of those call traces:
>>>> "
>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>   [<ffffffffa01d7006>] ext4_es_lru_add+0x26/0x80 [ext4]
>>>>   [<ffffffffa01d7286>] ext4_es_insert_extent+0x96/0x100 [ext4]
>>>>   [<ffffffffa01c3fd3>] ? ext4_find_delalloc_range+0x23/0x60 [ext4]
>>>>   [<ffffffffa019b781>] ext4_map_blocks+0x111/0x450 [ext4]
>>>>   [<ffffffffa019d167>] _ext4_get_block+0x87/0x190 [ext4]
>>>>   [<ffffffffa019d2c6>] ext4_get_block+0x16/0x20 [ext4]
>>>>   [<ffffffff8117f73f>] generic_block_bmap+0x3f/0x50
>>>>   [<ffffffffa013f4ae>] ? jbd2_journal_file_buffer+0x4e/0x80 [jbd2]
>>>>   [<ffffffff810f6242>] ? mapping_tagged+0x12/0x20
>>>>   [<ffffffffa019ad71>] ext4_bmap+0x91/0xf0 [ext4]
>>>>   [<ffffffff811686de>] bmap+0x1e/0x30
>>>>   [<ffffffffa0148063>] jbd2_journal_bmap+0x33/0xb0 [jbd2]
>>>>   [<ffffffffa014831d>] jbd2_journal_next_log_block+0x7d/0x90 [jbd2]
>>>>   [<ffffffffa0140238>] jbd2_journal_commit_transaction+0x7f8/0x1ae0 [jbd2]
>>>>   [<ffffffff81084e13>] ? idle_balance+0xd3/0x110
>>>>   [<ffffffff8105a018>] ? lock_timer_base.isra.35+0x38/0x70
>>>>   [<ffffffffa014593a>] kjournald2+0xba/0x230 [jbd2]
>>>>   [<ffffffff81070360>] ? finish_wait+0x80/0x80
>>>>   [<ffffffffa0145880>] ? jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode+0x130/0x130 [jbd2]
>>>>   [<ffffffff8106fb60>] kthread+0xc0/0xd0
>>>>   [<ffffffff8106faa0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x130/0x130
>>>>   [<ffffffff81554c2c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>>>>   [<ffffffff8106faa0>] ? kthread_create_on_node+0x130/0x130
>>>> "
>>>>
>>>> Is there any chance to fix them in vanilla 3.10.61?
>>>    Ted is just testing patches to fix these. You are welcome if you can give
>>> them a try as well (tarball attached). I'm not sure patches will be
>>> backported as far as to 3.10-stable but when the patches get some testing
>>> in mainline, I'll be porting them to 3.12-stable for our enterprise
>>> kernel...
>>
>> OK i tried to port them to 3.10 but it seems i can't handle this. There
>> are so many differences. Are there any workarounds possible? Currently
>> the 3.10 kernel is also completely crashing with this backtrace.
>    No workarounds I'm aware of. Sorry. When I have patches for 3.12, you can
> try porting them to 3.10. That should be an easier task...

Yes i think i'll be able todo this. Any idea when you'll have patches 
around?

Thanks,
Stefan