From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com ([209.85.212.178]:38579 "EHLO mail-wi0-f178.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754383Ab2GKCBe (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Jul 2012 22:01:34 -0400 Received: by wibhr14 with SMTP id hr14so594935wib.1 for ; Tue, 10 Jul 2012 19:01:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4FFCD8DA.3000009@cn.fujitsu.com> References: <4FF12190.9090005@cn.fujitsu.com> <4FFCD8DA.3000009@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2012 10:01:33 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: Please hammer my for-linus branch From: Daniel J Blueman To: Liu Bo Cc: Chris Mason , Linux BTRFS , Josef Bacik Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 11 July 2012 09:37, Liu Bo wrote: > On 07/10/2012 08:18 PM, Daniel J Blueman wrote: > >> On 2 July 2012 12:20, Liu Bo wrote: >>> On 07/02/2012 11:35 AM, Daniel J Blueman wrote: >>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I've got a nice set of fixes from Josef, Jan, Ilya and others in my >>>>> for-linus branch: >>>>> >>>>> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/mason/linux-btrfs.git for-linus >>>>> >>>>> Some of the changes are fixes for the tree logging code, so I ran some >>>>> extra crash runs against them Friday night. >>>>> >>>>> I ended up with a new crash in the tree log directory deletion replay >>>>> code, so I didn't send out the pull request to Linus. >>>>> >>>>> It isn't clear yet if the new crash is because I was testing differently >>>>> or if it is a regression. I'm nailing it down this weekend, but please >>>>> give my for-linus a shot. >>>> With this branch (3.4.0), my test has consistently been hitting the >>>> BUG_ON(owner < BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID) in >>>> insert_inline_extent_backref [1]. This is followed by a string of >>>> other issues [2] and a hard lockup, so I used netconsole to collect >>>> this. >>>> >>>> I'm preparing my btrfs test for xfstests integration, but can slip you >>>> it if interested. It hits this case in ~30s. >>>> >>> >>> IMO the BUG_ON is meant to avoid to mix 'log tree' in, it should be: >>> >>> BUG_ON(owner < BTRFS_FIRST_FREE_OBJECTID && root_objectid == BTRFS_TREE_LOG_OBJECTID); >>> >>> This should help you, can you give it a try? >> >> Bo, this did address the assertion I was tripping, so looks good from >> here; it allowed me to report the second (different) assertion of >> course. >> >> If you still think the fix is sound, is it a good idea for 3.5-rc7? > > > Hi Daniel, > > I'm sorry but it is not ready yet, as it does not catch the root cause of the bug. > > Josef has found that the bug comes from disabling merging delayed refs and is working on the bug > with Arne. As the root cause has been found, the bug will be fixed soon IMO. Now I see the two issues are connected. > Btw, while testing with your great test scripts, I also post patches for two bugs, which may have address your > other issues. Their links are > > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg17761.html > http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg17764.html Great work indeed! Thanks Bo, Daniel -- Daniel J Blueman