From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Jim Schutt" <jaschut@sandia.gov>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent_io.c:3982!
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:24:30 -0600
Message-ID: <4F85E87E.90804@sandia.gov>
References: <4F848C62.6030100@sandia.gov>
 <20120411190926.GE2506@localhost.localdomain>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=utf-8;
 format=flowed
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
To: "Josef Bacik" <josef@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <20120411190926.GE2506@localhost.localdomain>
List-ID: <linux-btrfs.vger.kernel.org>

On 04/11/2012 01:09 PM, Josef Bacik 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:
>>
>
> Can you give this a whirl and let me know how it goes?  If I'm right you should
> see a warning pop up in your messages.  Thanks,

OK, I've got my test running with your patch applied
to my previous kernel.

Do you expect your warning to only fire when my
previous kernel would have BUGged?  I ask because I've
only seen the BUG once, so it may be a low-probability
occurrence.

It seems like I should keep testing until I see either
your new warning or the BUG, right?

Thanks -- Jim

>
> Josef