From: Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>
To: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>,
Ralf Hildebrandt <Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/direct-io.c:916!
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2006 16:01:35 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20060328050135.GA2177@frodo> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060327110342.GX21946@charite.de>
On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:03:42PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> * Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>:
> > On Mon, Mar 27, 2006 at 01:03:59AM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote:
> > > * Nathan Scott <nathans@sgi.com>:
> > >
> > > > Hmm, there were XFS patches in -mm last week, but they also got
> > > > merged to mainline last week, not clear whether your git kernel
> > > > had those changes or not. I think there's probably some direct
> > > > I/O (generic) changes in -mm too based on list traffic from the
> > > > last couple of weeks (I'm an -mm lamer, sorry, couldn't easily
> > > > tell you exactly what patches those might be) - could you retry
> > > > with todays git snapshot and see if mainline is affected? Else
> > > > we'll need to find and analyse any -mm fs/direct-io.c patches.
> > >
> > > 2.6.16-git12 also fails utterly:
> >
> > Could you also try reverting this patch:
> >
> > http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6.git;a=commitdiff;h=1d8fa7a2b9a39d18727acc5c468e870df606c852
> >
> > and let me know if the problem still happens?
>
> Reverting this particular patch does ELIMINATE the problem.
> Excellent!
OK, I think I see whats gone wrong here now. Ralf, could you try
the patch below and check that it fixes your test case?
Badari, it looks like a regression from the "remove ->get_blocks()
support" patch - can you look over the fix below and confirm/deny
please?
I'm definately seeing block mapping requests that are smaller than
the filesystem block size coming into XFS from direct-io.c - and it
looks like that eventually blows up in do_direct_IO if dio_remainder
becomes set and we could only map one block (if dio->blocks_available
was 1 after get_more_blocks). We'll reduce that to zero right at the
end of the branch that calls get_more_blocks in do_direct_IO... and
mayhem ensues further on.
I have a couple of other .17 changes pending, if you could ACK this
I'll get it merged in for ya.
cheers.
--
Nathan
Index: xfs-linux-2.6/fs/direct-io.c
===================================================================
--- xfs-linux-2.6.orig/fs/direct-io.c
+++ xfs-linux-2.6/fs/direct-io.c
@@ -524,8 +524,6 @@ static int get_more_blocks(struct dio *d
*/
ret = dio->page_errors;
if (ret == 0) {
- map_bh->b_state = 0;
- map_bh->b_size = 0;
BUG_ON(dio->block_in_file >= dio->final_block_in_request);
fs_startblk = dio->block_in_file >> dio->blkfactor;
dio_count = dio->final_block_in_request - dio->block_in_file;
@@ -534,6 +532,9 @@ static int get_more_blocks(struct dio *d
if (dio_count & blkmask)
fs_count++;
+ map_bh->b_state = 0;
+ map_bh->b_size = fs_count << dio->inode->i_blkbits;
+
create = dio->rw == WRITE;
if (dio->lock_type == DIO_LOCKING) {
if (dio->block_in_file < (i_size_read(dio->inode) >>
@@ -542,13 +543,13 @@ static int get_more_blocks(struct dio *d
} else if (dio->lock_type == DIO_NO_LOCKING) {
create = 0;
}
+
/*
* For writes inside i_size we forbid block creations: only
* overwrites are permitted. We fall back to buffered writes
* at a higher level for inside-i_size block-instantiating
* writes.
*/
- map_bh->b_size = fs_count << dio->blkbits;
ret = (*dio->get_block)(dio->inode, fs_startblk,
map_bh, create);
}
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2006-03-28 5:06 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-03-26 18:04 kernel BUG at fs/direct-io.c:916! Ralf Hildebrandt
2006-03-26 18:46 ` Ralf Hildebrandt
2006-03-26 22:08 ` Nathan Scott
2006-03-26 23:03 ` Ralf Hildebrandt
2006-03-27 5:33 ` Nathan Scott
[not found] ` <20060327060436.GC2481@frodo>
[not found] ` <20060327110342.GX21946@charite.de>
2006-03-28 5:01 ` Nathan Scott [this message]
2006-03-28 11:28 ` Ralf Hildebrandt
2006-03-28 21:43 ` Nathan Scott
2006-03-29 8:35 ` Ralf Hildebrandt
2006-03-28 17:30 ` Badari Pulavarty
2006-03-28 22:23 ` Nathan Scott
2006-03-30 18:42 ` Badari Pulavarty
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=20060328050135.GA2177@frodo \
--to=nathans@sgi.com \
--cc=Ralf.Hildebrandt@charite.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com \
--cc=pbadari@us.ibm.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