From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n5UKDZKC227370 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 15:13:38 -0500 Received: from pu01.news-service.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 779541091814 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from pu01.news-service.com (ns1.news-service.com [195.114.240.3]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id j2I0ciZ2EeHqvbk2 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2009 13:20:21 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A4A7205.6010101@news-service.com> Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:13:57 +0200 From: Patrick Schreurs MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode References: <4A408316.2070903@news-service.com> <1587994907.388291245745033392.JavaMail.root@zmail05.collab.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com> <20090623171305.GB23971@infradead.org> In-Reply-To: <20090623171305.GB23971@infradead.org> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com, Tommy van Leeuwen , Lachlan McIlroy , Eric Sandeen Hi (again), Anyone has any advice to prevent this from happening? We've seen 10 crashes in the last 14 days. Would it be helpful to enable CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG? Does this result in a big performance hit on busy xfs filesystems? If we can help troubleshoot this problem, please advice. If i understand correctly this issue also exists in 2.6.29? Should i downgrade to the latest 2.6.28 kernel to regain stability? Thanks. -Patrick Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Tue, Jun 23, 2009 at 04:17:13AM -0400, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: >> It looks to me like xfs_reclaim_inode() has returned EAGAIN because the >> XFS_RECLAIM flag was set on the xfs inode. This implies we are trying >> to reclaim an inode that is already in the process of being reclaimed. >> I'm not sure how this happened but it could be a simple case of ignoring >> this error since the reclaim is already in progress. > > Well, having the reclaim already in progress means we're racing here. > And I suspect this fits into the other bugs with possibly duplicat > inodes we see after the inode+xfs_inode unification. > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs