From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B88DB7F4E for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 02:01:25 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 961C830405F for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:01:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com (mx4-phx2.redhat.com [209.132.183.25]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id mzwHrMzDDf2sf6Et for ; Thu, 31 Jan 2013 00:01:18 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 03:01:10 -0500 (EST) From: CAI Qian Message-ID: <2103902716.11642129.1359619270232.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20130131040748.GH32297@disturbed.disaster> Subject: Re: 3.8-rc5 xfs corruption MIME-Version: 1.0 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: Dave Chinner Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel , xfs@oss.sgi.com ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Chinner" > To: "CAI Qian" > Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com, linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, "linux-kernel" > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:07:48 PM > Subject: Re: 3.8-rc5 xfs corruption > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:16:47PM -0500, CAI Qian wrote: > > Hello, > > > > (Sorry to post to xfs mailing lists but unsure about which one is > > the > > best for this.) > > Trimmed to just xfs@oss.sgi.com. Thanks for quick response, Dave. > > > I have seen something like this once during testing on a system > > with a > > EMC VNX FC/multipath back-end. > > This is a trace from the verifier code that was added in 3.8-rc1 so > I doubt it has anything to do with any problem you've seen in the > past.... > > Can you tell us what workload you were running and what hardware you > are using as per: > > http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F This was the system, - AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 4130 (1 socket, 4 cores) - PowerEdge R415 - 8G memory - mptsas local disks Software version, - xfsprogs-3.1.10 The workload was running some fs_mark, syscalls tests, some nfs/cifs connectathon tests, memory, libhugetlbfs tests, and some dynamic debug (Documentation/dynamic-debug-howto.txt) tests. > > As it is, if you mounted the filesystem after this problem was > detected, log recovery probably propagated it to disk. I'd suggest > that you run xfs_repair -n on the device and post the output so we > can see if any corruption has actaully made it to disk. If no > corruption made it to disk, it's possible that we've got the > incorrect verifier attached to the buffer. The system was taken away from me, so I can only occupy it again later if needed. Regards, CAI Qian > > > [ 3025.063024] ffff8801a0d50000: 2e 2e 2f 2e 2e 2f 75 73 72 2f 6c > > 69 62 2f 6d 6f ../../usr/lib/mo > > The start of a block contains a path and the only > type of block that can contain this format of metadata is remote > symlink block. Remote symlink blocks don't have a verifier attached > to them as there is nothing that can currently be used to verify > them as correct. > > I can't see exactly how this can occur as stale buffers have the > verifier ops cleared before being returned to the new user, and > newly allocated xfs_bufs are zeroed before being initialised. I > really need to know what you are doing to be able to get to the > bottom of it.... > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@fromorbit.com > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs