From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: bug caused by removal of trans_mutex? (Was: Re: kernel BUG at
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!)
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 16:26:16 +0800
Message-ID: <4DF5C9A8.5060100@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <4DEC90CB.4050609@jp.fujitsu.com>	<4DEDB7AF.2060308@cn.fujitsu.com>	<4DEDBE4B.2020403@jp.fujitsu.com>	<4DEDC293.30105@jp.fujitsu.com>	<4DEDE03B.9050907@jp.fujitsu.com>	<4DEDE328.5060405@cn.fujitsu.com>	<1307461229-sup-9822@shiny>	<4DEF04CF.8010502@jp.fujitsu.com>	<4DF5B889.5080202@cn.fujitsu.com> <BANLkTi=UE+6uAq+wtvqRNwbZ1Lft4u2iOg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Cc: Tsutomu Itoh <t-itoh@jp.fujitsu.com>,
	Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com>,
	liubo <liubo2009@cn.fujitsu.com>,
	Linux Btrfs <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
	Josef Bacik <josef@redhat.com>
To: "Yan, Zheng " <yanzheng@21cn.com>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTi=UE+6uAq+wtvqRNwbZ1Lft4u2iOg@mail.gmail.com>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

Yan, Zheng wrote:
> Add a mutex to btrfs_init_reloc_root() to prevent the reloc tree
> creation from concurrent execution.

Thanks!

Unfortunately I can still encounter BUG() in difference places in
each run:

kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6173!

kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2567!

> 
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Li Zefan <lizf@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Cc: Josef
>>
>>>>>>>>>> I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus'
>>>>>>>>>> kernel.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I ran "btrfs fi bal /test5" command, and mount option of /test5
>>>>>>>>>> is as follows:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>  /dev/sdc3 on /test5 type btrfs (rw,space_cache,compress=lzo,inode_cache)
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So, just a "btrfs fi bal" would lead to the bug?
>>>>>>>> I think so.
>>>>
>>>> It should be specific to the inode caching code.  The balancing code is
>>>> finding the inode map cache extents, but it doesn't know how to relocate
>>>> them.
>>>
>>> However, the panic has occurred even if inode_cahce is turned off.
>>> Is this another problem?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think free inode cache isthe cause of the bug here (even if inode_cache
>> is turned on).
>>
>> What I have found out is:
>>
>> 1. git checkout a4abeea41adfa3c143c289045f4625dfaeba2212
>>
>> So the top commit is the removal of trans_mutex and no delayed_inode patch
>> or free inode cache patchset in the tree, and bug can be triggered.
>>
>> 2. git checkout 2a1eb4614d984d5cd4c928784e9afcf5c07f93be
>>
>> So the top commit is the one before trans_mutex removal, and no bug triggered.
>>
>> 3. test linus' tree
>>
>> bug triggered.
>>
>> 4. revert that suspicoius commit manually from linus' tree
>>
>> no bug.
>>
>> so either that commit is buggy or it reveals some bugs covered by the trans_mutex.