From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1CFDAC33CB6 for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:18:08 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6D8F2072B for ; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:18:07 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=oracle.com header.i=@oracle.com header.b="VyKQ5/0p" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726917AbgAQGSH (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 01:18:07 -0500 Received: from aserp2120.oracle.com ([141.146.126.78]:40408 "EHLO aserp2120.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726189AbgAQGSG (ORCPT ); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 01:18:06 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (aserp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 00H68w4h150414; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:17:57 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=corp-2019-08-05; bh=HBNLcSeaD/W5hfvXizZReTomydmFa2dESINNThPsAeM=; b=VyKQ5/0priy3kME076gJm/plIURa2UsYI59kYEj0aSN71p6KBz1NMRqaKeWvl5JGK7pH s5y/I+DjyzVjz0a/jDxTIodEmzvJBrahMsCmS0eo835uUKtvozOCeiV5fY123C0eOyoE yGTsuYPaw/O0ZYUqoBv0OCEfHzynaPXujZQlEA99vkswEjIHNBcfxXLX1SPWOiu8jOWU k1TlOeBDwMU5E5fapD2+i79cIiqhCnZv1f5k5wtGzqpNEgTZQUrNqp6sR+wOU7zUWstL L/+i6fX+ahhC/H9ol322Td7CdfyzUfGeLoQk8S0nTs7+KJploo1ytftp1sGUmRW1sG/0 SQ== Received: from userp3020.oracle.com (userp3020.oracle.com [156.151.31.79]) by aserp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2xf73u6qtx-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:17:57 +0000 Received: from pps.filterd (userp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.27/8.16.0.27) with SMTP id 00H68U3Z129423; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:15:56 GMT Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by userp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 2xjxp4h725-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:15:56 +0000 Received: from abhmp0010.oracle.com (abhmp0010.oracle.com [141.146.116.16]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id 00H6FtcJ032100; Fri, 17 Jan 2020 06:15:55 GMT Received: from localhost (/67.169.218.210) by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:15:55 -0800 Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2020 22:15:52 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: "yukuai (C)" Cc: guaneryu@gmail.com, jbacik@fusionio.com, fstests@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, zhengbin13@huawei.com, yi.zhang@huawei.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs/126: fix that corrupt xattr might fail with a small probability Message-ID: <20200117061552.GQ8247@magnolia> References: <20200108092758.41363-1-yukuai3@huawei.com> <20200108162227.GD5552@magnolia> <3c7e9497-e0ed-23e4-ff9c-4b1c1a77c9fa@huawei.com> <20200109164615.GA8247@magnolia> <51e99fd5-617f-6558-7a04-c4a198139cdd@huawei.com> <20200116160323.GC2149943@magnolia> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9502 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=988 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-2001170048 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9502 signatures=668685 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1911140001 definitions=main-2001170048 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Fri, Jan 17, 2020 at 11:10:45AM +0800, yukuai (C) wrote: > > > On 2020/1/17 10:20, yukuai (C) wrote: > > After adding "-o 4", I tested over 200 times, and blocktrash never > > failed to corrupt xattr anymore. > > Unfortunately, test failed with more attempts: > > _check_dmesg: something found in dmesg (see > /root/xfstests-dev/results//xfs/126.dmesg) > > [ 4597.649086] BUG: MAX_LOCKDEP_CHAIN_HLOCKS too low! > [ 4597.649709] turning off the locking correctness validator. That's a deficiency in lockdep not being able to follow XFS crazy locking. It's not a bug in XFS itself. --D > [ 4597.650363] CPU: 4 PID: 377 Comm: kworker/4:1H Not tainted 5.5.0-rc6 #197 > [ 4597.651027] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS > ?-20180531_142017-buildhw-08.phx2.fedoraproject.org-1.fc28 04/01/2014 > [ 4597.652276] Workqueue: xfs-log/sdb xlog_ioend_work > [ 4597.652803] Call Trace: > [ 4597.653109] dump_stack+0xdd/0x13f > [ 4597.653573] __lock_acquire.cold.46+0x7a/0x409 > [ 4597.654000] lock_acquire+0xf6/0x270 > [ 4597.654487] ? xlog_state_do_callback+0x1eb/0x4e0 > [ 4597.654921] _raw_spin_lock+0x45/0x70 > [ 4597.655250] ? xlog_state_do_callback+0x1eb/0x4e0 > [ 4597.655666] xlog_state_do_callback+0x1eb/0x4e0 > [ 4597.656123] xlog_state_done_syncing+0x8b/0x110 > [ 4597.656727] xlog_ioend_work+0x94/0x150 > [ 4597.657210] process_one_work+0x346/0x910 > [ 4597.657714] worker_thread+0x284/0x6d0 > [ 4597.658125] ? rescuer_thread+0x550/0x550 > [ 4597.658647] kthread+0x168/0x1a0 > [ 4597.658931] ? kthread_unpark+0xb0/0xb0 > [ 4597.659470] ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30 > > I wonder, could we increase the number of "-o 4" to fix this? > > Thanks! > Yu Kuai >