From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF277F3F for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 02:46:13 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A54EEAC002 for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:46:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 7uwaokqq9zpfZZZS for ; Tue, 12 Mar 2013 00:46:11 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 18:46:08 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic Message-ID: <20130312074608.GL21651@dastard> References: <20130312060701.GI21651@dastard> <1032405745.12626044.1363070047355.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1032405745.12626044.1363070047355.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> 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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: CAI Qian Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 02:34:07AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Dave Chinner" > > To: "CAI Qian" > > Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com > > Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:07:01 PM > > Subject: Re: 3.9-rc2 xfs panic > > > > On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 12:32:28AM -0400, CAI Qian wrote: > > > Just came across when running xfstests using 3.9-rc2 kernel on a > > > power7 > > > box with addition of this patch which fixed a known issue, > > > http://people.redhat.com/qcai/stable/01-fix-double-fetch-hlist.patch > > > > > > The log shows it was happened around test case 370 with > > > TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE = 2048 > > > > That doesn't sound like xfstests. it only has 305 tests, and no > > parameters like TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE.... > Sorry, it is a typo, test case 270 not 370. TEST_PARAM_BLKSIZE was > from an internal wrapper to be used to create new filessytem not from the > original xfstests. OK, so that means you're testing 2k filesystem block size on a 64k page size machine? Are you running with CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG=y? > > So, looks like memory corruption - a corrupted slab, perhaps? Can > > you turn on memory poisoning, debugging, etc? Does this turn anything up? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs