From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jim Schutt" Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:3982! Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 14:32:22 -0600 Message-ID: <4F8498D6.6050905@sandia.gov> References: <4F848C62.6030100@sandia.gov> <20120410202440.GZ29506@shiny> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed To: "Chris Mason" , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20120410202440.GZ29506@shiny> List-ID: On 04/10/2012 02:24 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 01:39:14PM -0600, Jim Schutt wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I hit this BUG today. >> >> I'm running 3.3.1 merged with the ceph and btrfs bits for 3.4, >> i.e. 3.3.1 + >> commit bc3f116fec194 "Btrfs: update the checks for mixed block groups with big metadata blocks" >> commit c666601a935b9 "rbd: move snap_rwsem to the device, rename to header_rwsem" >> >> The btrfs filesystem in question is backing a Ceph OSD under >> a heavy write load. >> >> Here's the bug: >> >> [510342.517157] ------------[ cut here ]------------ >> [510342.521855] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:3982! > > Could you please confirm that line number is this BUG_ON() > > BUG_ON(extent_buffer_under_io(eb)); Yep, that's definitely it: git blame fs/btrfs/extent_io.c | grep -w 3982 0b32f4bb (Josef Bacik 2012-03-13 09:38:00 -0400 3982) BUG_ON(extent_buffer_under_io(eb)); > > Josef has a theory on this one, but I want to make sure we're chasing > the right thing. Great, thanks. I'll be happy to test any patches, if needed. -- Jim > > -chris >