From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Yan, Zheng " Subject: Re: 2.6.33-rc2+ bug in fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c:672 Date: Mon, 4 Jan 2010 12:20:18 +0800 Message-ID: <3d0408631001032020n10d82ea4x1ecde375bd46060a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20100102103227.GA3678@Pilar.aei.mpg.de> <20100102223416.GA6090@Pilar> <201001040122.36431.johannes.hirte@fem.tu-ilmenau.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Cc: "Carlos R. Mafra" , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Chris Mason To: Johannes Hirte Return-path: In-Reply-To: <201001040122.36431.johannes.hirte@fem.tu-ilmenau.de> List-ID: On Mon, Jan 4, 2010 at 8:22 AM, Johannes Hirte wrote: > Am Samstag 02 Januar 2010 23:34:17 schrieb Carlos R. Mafra: >> On Sa =A02.Jan'10 at 11:32:27 +0100, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: >> > I started testing btrfs for my /home a few days ago and yesterday >> > I hit a kernel bug, using 2.6.33-rc2-00187-g08d869a. >> > >> > I wasn't doing any stress test with it, I was simply watching a >> > DVD with xine while chrome was open in another workspace. >> >> Today I hit the bug twice, and it was always with chrome. I've >> seen the other two reports in kerneloops.org involving >> btrfs_ordered_update_i_size() and chrome was there too. >> >> And now I saved the dmesg in the ext3 partition, so now there >> is no need for the photo, >> >> >> [13450.613952] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [13450.613957] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ordered-data.c:672! >> [13450.613960] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP >> [13450.613963] last sysfs file: >> =A0/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/cpufreq/scaling_cur_freq [13450.6139= 66] CPU 1 >> [13450.613970] Pid: 3372, comm: chrome Not tainted >> =A02.6.33-rc2-fs-00187-g08d869a #293 VAIO/VGN-FZ240E [13450.613973] = RIP: >> =A00010:[] =A0[] >> =A0btrfs_ordered_update_i_size+0x237/0x3d0 [13450.613982] RSP: >> =A00018:ffff880071355da8 =A0EFLAGS: 00010287 >> [13450.613984] RAX: ffff88007f0c0728 RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: >> =A0ffff880077c0c6a8 [13450.613986] RDX: 00000000002b5000 RSI: >> =A00000000000000000 RDI: ffff880077c0c6b8 [13450.613989] RBP: >> =A0ffff880071355e18 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000000 >> =A0[13450.613991] R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000000 R12: >> =A0ffff8800729dd260 [13450.613993] R13: 00000000002b4b24 R14: >> =A00000000000000000 R15: 00000000002b4b24 [13450.613996] FS: >> =A000007f2b3db68910(0000) GS:ffff880001b00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000= 000000 >> =A0[13450.613999] CS: =A00010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 000000008005003= 3 >> [13450.614001] CR2: 00007f2b3c2a4000 CR3: 0000000071167000 CR4: >> =A000000000000006e0 [13450.614003] DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: >> =A00000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 [13450.614005] DR3: >> =A00000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400 >> =A0[13450.614008] Process chrome (pid: 3372, threadinfo ffff88007135= 4000, >> =A0task ffff88007d380640) [13450.614010] Stack: >> [13450.614011] =A0ffff8800729dd0c0 0000000000000000 fffffffffffff000 >> =A00000000000000fff [13450.614015] <0> ffff8800729dd0f0 ffff88007c7c= c000 >> =A0ffff8800729dd0c0 ffff8800729dd170 [13450.614019] <0> ffff88007135= 5e18 >> =A0ffff880071355ee8 ffff8800729dd260 0000000000000000 [13450.614023]= Call >> =A0Trace: >> [13450.614028] =A0[] btrfs_setattr+0x17d/0x270 >> [13450.614033] =A0[] notify_change+0x104/0x2e0 >> [13450.614037] =A0[] do_truncate+0x5f/0x90 >> [13450.614041] =A0[] ? vfs_write+0x132/0x180 >> [13450.614044] =A0[] sys_ftruncate+0xe9/0x130 >> [13450.614049] =A0[] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1= b >> [13450.614050] Code: 0f 1f 40 00 eb 88 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 49 8b 84 24= 38 ff >> =A0ff ff 48 85 c0 74 1b 48 8b 50 98 49 39 d5 72 12 48 03 50 a8 49 39= d5 73 09 >> =A0<0f> 0b eb fe 0f 1f 44 00 00 49 8b 94 24 30 ff ff ff 48 89 55 b8 >> =A0[13450.614082] RIP =A0[] >> =A0btrfs_ordered_update_i_size+0x237/0x3d0 [13450.614087] =A0RSP >> =A0 >> [13450.614090] ---[ end trace 74172209f4d15206 ]--- > > Sounds like the bug reported here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.com= p.file- > systems.btrfs/4332/match=3Dbtrfs+fails+randomly. Can you try the patc= h provided > in that thread? > I have sent a patch for this. http://www.mail-archive.com/linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org/msg03686.html Regards Yan, Zheng