From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list xfs); Sun, 18 May 2008 01:47:50 -0700 (PDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.168.29]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id m4I8lkDN002393 for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 01:47:48 -0700 Received: from mail.ukfsn.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BD659183C9F for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 01:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.ukfsn.org (mx1.ukfsn.org [77.75.108.10]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id kcZHhwIQ0aJV1TRa for ; Sun, 18 May 2008 01:48:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <482FED60.7060405@dgreaves.com> Date: Sun, 18 May 2008 09:48:32 +0100 From: David Greaves MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: Regression- XFS won't mount on partitioned md array References: <482DC043.5000307@dgreaves.com> <482DD981.5070004@sandeen.net> <482EEFDA.50101@dgreaves.com> <482EF6A7.2020909@sandeen.net> <482F67D9.70400@sandeen.net> <482FBD4C.20608@sandeen.net> In-Reply-To: <482FBD4C.20608@sandeen.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com Errors-to: xfs-bounce@oss.sgi.com List-Id: xfs To: Eric Sandeen Cc: David Chinner , xfs@oss.sgi.com, "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" , Christoph Hellwig , LinuxRaid Eric Sandeen wrote: > Eric Sandeen wrote: >> Eric Sandeen wrote: >> >>> I'll see if I have a little time today to track down the problem. >> >> Does this patch fix it for you? Does for me though I can't yet explain >> why ;) >> >> http://www.linux.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2008-05/msg00190.html >> >> -Eric Yes, this fixes it for me - thanks :) > So what's happening is that xfs is trying to read a page-sized IO from > the last sector of the log... which goes off the end of the device. > This looks like another regression introduced by > a9759f2de38a3443d5107bddde03b4f3f550060e, but fixed by Christoph's patch > in the URL above, which should be headed towards -stable. Damn, I guess I misread my bisect readings when things crashed then. Still, I said 'around' :) > (aside: it seems that this breaks any external log setup where the log > consists of the entire device... but I'd have expected the xfsqa suite > to catch this...?) > > The patch avoids the problem by looking for some extra locking but it > seems to me that the root cause is that the buffer being read at this > point doesn't have it's b_offset, the offset in it's page, set. Might > be another little buglet but harmless it seems. mmmm 'little buglets' in the filesystem holding a few Tb of data... mmmm Anything I can do to help find that? I suspect not if you can reproduce it. Anyhow - thanks again. David PS I'll be back soon, back in 2.6.23 I was hitting a hibernate/xfs bug which I've been avoiding by powering down. Well, it's still there in 2.6.25.3...