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 7EE507F56 for ; Sun, 10 Jan 2016 01:54:14 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay3.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 111FCAC002 for ; Sat, 9 Jan 2016 23:54:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from newverein.lst.de (verein.lst.de [213.95.11.211]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id bzyE9nFqivVQvYbc (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO) for ; Sat, 09 Jan 2016 23:54:10 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 08:54:09 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] xfs: cancel COW in xfs_cancel_ioend Message-ID: <20160110075409.GA8213@lst.de> References: <1451822873-12969-1-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <1451822873-12969-4-git-send-email-hch@lst.de> <20160105014310.GK28330@birch.djwong.org> <20160105104214.GA16310@infradead.org> <20160107003227.GB8015@birch.djwong.org> <20160107152541.GA16982@lst.de> <20160108100933.GN28330@birch.djwong.org> <20160108134704.GA6708@lst.de> <20160109211713.GB6112@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20160109211713.GB6112@birch.djwong.org> 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: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sat, Jan 09, 2016 at 01:17:13PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > > > I've not seen the inode eviction asserts anymore, but I now hit a > > corruption warnings in generic/168 reliably. I did hit before as > > well, but not very reliably. > > I'll see if I can repro the 168 error; it's been running in a loop all > night and hasn't bombed yet. Note that this is over nfs to a local server, not running on xfs directly, which is doing fine. > In the meantime, I added some more tests and fixed a CoW corruption when an > xfs_io_overwrite extent has cow reservations in the middle of the extent. > > I also restarted testing on arm64, ppc64{,el}, and i686; it seems > stable enough right now to pass all ~130 reflink xfstests here. I see pretty reliable failures in xfs/128 xfs/132 xfs/139, apparenly due to content mismatches. Re the verifier failure: sees like we're hitting the if (level >= pag->pagf_refcount_level) return false; case. Together with the other garbage in it seems like we're seeing a btree block that's not properly initialized in some way, maybe after a split. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs