From: Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.priebe@profihost.ag>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: "xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com" <xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com>,
Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>,
"xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage
Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 19:56:08 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <5751C4B8.2080301@profihost.ag> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160522213850.GE26977@dastard>
Hi,
should i remove the complete if conditions incl. the return 0 or should
id convert it to if without WARN_ONCE? like below?
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(delalloc))
return 0;
if (WARN_ON_ONCE(unwritten))
return 0;
=>
if (delalloc)
return 0;
if (unwritten)
return 0;
Am 22.05.2016 um 23:38 schrieb Dave Chinner:
> On Sun, May 22, 2016 at 09:36:39PM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
>> Am 16.05.2016 um 03:06 schrieb Brian Foster:
>>>> sd_mod ehci_pci ehci_hcd usbcore usb_common igb ahci i2c_algo_bit libahci
>>>> i2c_core ptp mpt3sas pps_core raid_class scsi_transport_sas
>>>> [Sun May 15 07:00:44 2016] CPU: 2 PID: 108 Comm: kswapd0 Tainted: G O
>>>> 4.4.10+25-ph #1
>>>
>>> How close is this to an upstream kernel? Upstream XFS? Have you tried to
>>> reproduce this on an upstream kernel?
>>
>> It's a vanilla 4.4.10 + a new adaptec driver and some sched and wq
>> patches from 4.5 and 4.6 but i can try to replace the kernel on one
>> machine with a 100% vanilla one if this helps.
>
> Please do.
>
>>>> [295086.353473] XFS (md127p3): ino 0x600204f delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff
>>>> 0x52000 size 0x13d1c8
>>>> [295086.353476] XFS (md127p3): ino 0x600204f delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff
>>>> 0x53000 size 0x13d1c8
>>>> [295086.353478] XFS (md127p3): ino 0x600204f delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff
>>>> 0x54000 size 0x13d1c8
>>> ...
>>>> [295086.567508] XFS (md127p3): ino 0x600204f delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff
>>>> 0xab000 size 0x13d1c8
>>>> [295086.567510] XFS (md127p3): ino 0x600204f delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff
>>>> 0xac000 size 0x13d1c8
>>>> [295086.567515] XFS (md127p3): ino 0x600204f delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff
>>>> 0xad000 size 0x13d1c8
>>>>
>>>> The file to the inode number is:
>>>> /var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_dists_wheezy_updates_main_i18n_Translation-en
>>>>
>>>
>>> xfs_bmap -v might be interesting here as well.
>>
>> # xfs_bmap -v
>> /var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_dists_wheezy_updates_main_i18n_Translation-en
>> /var/lib/apt/lists/security.debian.org_dists_wheezy_updates_main_i18n_Translation-en:
>> EXT: FILE-OFFSET BLOCK-RANGE AG AG-OFFSET TOTAL
>> 0: [0..2567]: 41268928..41271495 3 (374464..377031) 2568
>
> So the last file offset with a block is 0x140e00. This means the
> file is fully allocated. However, the pages inside the file range
> are still marked delayed allocation. That implies that we've failed
> to write the pages over a delayed allocation region after we've
> allocated the space.
>
> That, in turn, tends to indicate a problem in page writeback - the
> first page to be written has triggered delayed allocation of the
> entire range, but then the subsequent pages have not been written
> (for some as yet unknown reason). When a page is written, we map it
> to the current block via xfs_map_at_offset(), and that clears both
> the buffer delay and unwritten flags.
>
> This clearly isn't happening which means either the VFS doesn't
> think the inode is dirty anymore, writeback is never asking for
> these pages to be written, or XFs is screwing something up in
> ->writepage. The XFS writepage code changed significantly in 4.6, so
> it might be worth seeing if a 4.6 kernel reproduces this same
> problem....
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-03 17:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 49+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-02-20 8:02 xfs trace in 4.4.2 Stefan Priebe
2016-02-20 14:45 ` Brian Foster
2016-02-20 18:02 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-03-04 18:47 ` xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage Stefan Priebe
2016-03-04 19:13 ` Brian Foster
2016-03-04 20:02 ` Stefan Priebe
2016-03-04 21:03 ` Brian Foster
2016-03-04 21:15 ` Stefan Priebe
2016-03-05 22:48 ` Dave Chinner
2016-03-05 22:58 ` Stefan Priebe
2016-03-23 13:26 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-03-23 13:28 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-03-23 14:07 ` Brian Foster
2016-03-24 8:10 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-03-24 8:15 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-03-24 11:17 ` Brian Foster
2016-03-24 12:17 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-03-24 12:24 ` Brian Foster
2016-04-04 6:12 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-05-11 12:26 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-05-11 13:34 ` Brian Foster
2016-05-11 14:03 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-05-11 15:59 ` Brian Foster
2016-05-11 19:20 ` Stefan Priebe
2016-05-15 11:03 ` Stefan Priebe
2016-05-15 11:50 ` Brian Foster
2016-05-15 12:41 ` Stefan Priebe
2016-05-16 1:06 ` Brian Foster
2016-05-22 19:36 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-05-22 21:38 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-30 7:23 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-05-30 22:36 ` shrink_active_list/try_to_release_page bug? (was Re: xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage) Dave Chinner
2016-05-31 1:07 ` Minchan Kim
2016-05-31 2:55 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-31 3:59 ` Minchan Kim
2016-05-31 6:07 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-31 6:11 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-05-31 7:31 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-31 8:03 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-06-02 12:13 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG
2016-06-02 12:44 ` Holger Hoffstätte
2016-06-02 23:08 ` Dave Chinner
2016-05-31 9:50 ` Jan Kara
2016-06-01 1:38 ` Minchan Kim
2016-08-17 15:37 ` Andreas Grünbacher
2016-06-03 17:56 ` Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG [this message]
2016-06-03 19:35 ` xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage Holger Hoffstätte
2016-06-04 0:04 ` Dave Chinner
2016-06-26 5:45 ` Stefan Priebe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=5751C4B8.2080301@profihost.ag \
--to=s.priebe@profihost.ag \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=xfs-masters@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox