From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n1JC2XL9104967 for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 06:02:33 -0600 Received: from mx1.suse.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E5EB41BBEFAD for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:02:00 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx1.suse.de (mx1.suse.de [195.135.220.2]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id EhKVIzbL4tmrRXLG for ; Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:02:00 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:01:58 +0100 From: Nick Piggin Subject: Re: xfs problems (possibly after upgrading from linux kernel 2.6.27.10 to .14) Message-ID: <20090219120158.GA1747@wotan.suse.de> References: <499ACE6C.4060304@aei.mpg.de> <20090218091935.GD8830@disturbed> <499BD6BB.2000406@aei.mpg.de> <20090219061925.GE8830@disturbed> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20090219061925.GE8830@disturbed> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Carsten Aulbert , "xfs@oss.sgi.com" , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 05:19:25PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:36:59AM +0100, Carsten Aulbert wrote: > > >> plus a few more nodes showing the same characteristics > > > > > > Hmmmm. Did this show up in 2.6.27.10? Or did it start occurring only > > > after you upgraded from .10 to .14? > > > > As far as I can see this only happened after the upgrade about 14 days > > ago. What strikes me odd is that we only had this occurring massively on > > Monday and Tuesday this week. > > > > I don't know if a certain access pattern could trigger this somehow. > > I suspect so. We've already had XFS trigger one bug in the new > lockless pagecache code, and the fix for that went in 2.6.27.11 - > between the good version and the version that you've been seeing > these memory corruptions on. I'm wondering if that fix exposed or > introduced another bug that you've hit.... Highly unlikely. It only introduces constraints on how the compiler may generate code, so it would have to be a compiler bug to cause a bug I think. I wonder how long you've been running with 2.6.27 based kernels without corruption? _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs