Re: 2.6.0test9 Reiserfs boot time "buffer layer error at fs/buffer.c:431"

lkml-031028
2003-10-29T17:44:26Z

Hi,

Here are the results (output of dmesg) from booting a kernel with this
patch:

set_blocksize: size=1024
set_blocksize: 1024 OK
set_blocksize: size=1024
set_blocksize: 1024 OK
set_blocksize: size=1024
set_blocksize: 1024 OK
set_blocksize: size=1024
set_blocksize: 1024 OK
set_blocksize: size=4096
buffer layer error at fs/buffer.c:431
Call Trace:
[<c014f2b5>] __find_get_block_slow+0x85/0x120
[<c0150283>] __find_get_block+0x83/0xe0
[<c015030b>] __getblk+0x2b/0x60
[<c01503bf>] __bread+0x1f/0x40
[<c01a2172>] read_super_block+0x82/0x210
[<c01a2dd5>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x555/0x5a0
[<c01d69f7>] snprintf+0x27/0x30
[<c0154bc0>] set_blocksize+0xd0/0x110
[<c0154c25>] sb_set_blocksize+0x25/0x60
[<c0154594>] get_sb_bdev+0x124/0x160
[<c01a2e8f>] get_super_block+0x2f/0x60
[<c01a2880>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x0/0x5a0
[<c01547ff>] do_kern_mount+0x5f/0xe0
[<c0169608>] do_add_mount+0x78/0x150
[<c01698f4>] do_mount+0x124/0x170
[<c0169760>] copy_mount_options+0x80/0xf0
[<c0169caf>] sys_mount+0xbf/0x140
[<c0478b9f>] do_mount_root+0x2f/0xa0
[<c0478c64>] mount_block_root+0x54/0x120
[<c0478d8e>] mount_root+0x5e/0x70
[<c0478dbd>] prepare_namespace+0x1d/0xe0
[<c01050d2>] init+0x32/0x160
[<c01050a0>] init+0x0/0x160
[<c01070c9>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xc

block=16, b_blocknr=64
b_state=0x00000019, b_size=1024
buffer layer error at fs/buffer.c:431
Call Trace:
[<c014f2b5>] __find_get_block_slow+0x85/0x120
[<c01070c9>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xc
[<c010970c>] dump_stack+0x1c/0x20
[<c0150283>] __find_get_block+0x83/0xe0
[<c014fec3>] __getblk_slow+0x23/0xf0
[<c015032f>] __getblk+0x4f/0x60
[<c01503bf>] __bread+0x1f/0x40
[<c01a2172>] read_super_block+0x82/0x210
[<c01a2dd5>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x555/0x5a0
[<c01d69f7>] snprintf+0x27/0x30
[<c0154bc0>] set_blocksize+0xd0/0x110
[<c0154c25>] sb_set_blocksize+0x25/0x60
[<c0154594>] get_sb_bdev+0x124/0x160
[<c01a2e8f>] get_super_block+0x2f/0x60
[<c01a2880>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x0/0x5a0
[<c01547ff>] do_kern_mount+0x5f/0xe0
[<c0169608>] do_add_mount+0x78/0x150
[<c01698f4>] do_mount+0x124/0x170
[<c0169760>] copy_mount_options+0x80/0xf0
[<c0169caf>] sys_mount+0xbf/0x140
[<c0478b9f>] do_mount_root+0x2f/0xa0
[<c0478c64>] mount_block_root+0x54/0x120
[<c0478d8e>] mount_root+0x5e/0x70
[<c0478dbd>] prepare_namespace+0x1d/0xe0
[<c01050d2>] init+0x32/0x160
[<c01050a0>] init+0x0/0x160
[<c01070c9>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xc

block=16, b_blocknr=64
b_state=0x00000019, b_size=1024
found reiserfs format "3.6" with standard journal

Thanks,

--Amos

Andrew Morton wrote:
> lkml-031028@amos.mailshell.com wrote:
>
>>[1.] One line summary of the problem:
>>
>>First time boot of 2.6.0test9 on a resierfs disk gives the error above.
>>(buffer layer error at fs/buffer.c:431)
>>
>>...
>>
>>block=16, b_blocknr=64
>>b_state=0x00000019, b_size=1024
>>buffer layer error at fs/buffer.c:431
>
>
> ah-hah.
>
>
>>Call Trace:
>> [<c014f2b5>] __find_get_block_slow+0x85/0x120
>> [<c01070c9>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xc
>> [<c010970c>] dump_stack+0x1c/0x20
>> [<c0150283>] __find_get_block+0x83/0xe0
>> [<c014fec3>] __getblk_slow+0x23/0xf0
>> [<c015032f>] __getblk+0x4f/0x60
>> [<c01503bf>] __bread+0x1f/0x40
>> [<c01a2132>] read_super_block+0x82/0x210
>> [<c01a2d95>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x555/0x5a0
>> [<c01d69b7>] snprintf+0x27/0x30
>> [<c017bce2>] disk_name+0x62/0xb0
>> [<c0154bc5>] sb_set_blocksize+0x25/0x60
>> [<c0154594>] get_sb_bdev+0x124/0x160
>> [<c01a2e4f>] get_super_block+0x2f/0x60
>> [<c01a2840>] reiserfs_fill_super+0x0/0x5a0
>> [<c01547ff>] do_kern_mount+0x5f/0xe0
>> [<c01695c8>] do_add_mount+0x78/0x150
>> [<c01698b4>] do_mount+0x124/0x170
>> [<c0169720>] copy_mount_options+0x80/0xf0
>> [<c0169c6f>] sys_mount+0xbf/0x140
>> [<c0462b9f>] do_mount_root+0x2f/0xa0
>> [<c0462c64>] mount_block_root+0x54/0x120
>> [<c0462d8e>] mount_root+0x5e/0x70
>> [<c0462dbd>] prepare_namespace+0x1d/0xe0
>> [<c01050d2>] init+0x32/0x160
>> [<c01050a0>] init+0x0/0x160
>> [<c01070c9>] kernel_thread_helper+0x5/0xc
>
>
> I've been waiting a year for someone who can reproduce this.
>
> The filesystem is trying to read the 4k block at offset 16*4k.
>
> But someone had previously read the 1k block at offset 64*1k. It is an
> alias of the 4k read.
>
> We _should_ have shot down the four 1k-sized buffer_heads which are
> attached to the offset=16 pagecache page before trying to read it with 4k
> blocksize.
>
> But for some reason, that page still has the 1k-sized buffer_heads.
>
> This means that somehow, somewhere, we failed to successfully run
> set_blocksize() against that disk.
>
> Are you using initrd?
>
> Could you please add this patch, and send the new dmesg output?
>
>
> 25-akpm/fs/block_dev.c | 15 ++++++++++++---
> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff -puN fs/block_dev.c~a fs/block_dev.c
> --- 25/fs/block_dev.c~a Tue Oct 28 14:11:20 2003
> +++ 25-akpm/fs/block_dev.c Tue Oct 28 14:11:24 2003
> @@ -50,17 +50,26 @@ int set_blocksize(struct block_device *b
> {
> int oldsize;
>
> + printk("%s: size=%d\n", __FUNCTION__, size);
> +
> /* Size must be a power of two, and between 512 and PAGE_SIZE */
> - if (size > PAGE_SIZE || size < 512 || (size & (size-1)))
> + if (size > PAGE_SIZE || size < 512 || (size & (size-1))) {
> + printk("%s: EINVAL 1\n", __FUNCTION__);
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> /* Size cannot be smaller than the size supported by the device */
> - if (size < bdev_hardsect_size(bdev))
> + if (size < bdev_hardsect_size(bdev)) {
> + printk("%s: %d < %d\n", __FUNCTION__, size,
> + bdev_hardsect_size(bdev));
> return -EINVAL;
> + }
>
> oldsize = bdev->bd_block_size;
> - if (oldsize == size)
> + if (oldsize == size) {
> + printk("%s: %d OK\n", __FUNCTION__, size);
> return 0;
> + }
>
> /* Ok, we're actually changing the blocksize.. */
> sync_blockdev(bdev);
>
> _