|To:||"Neil Brown" <neilb@xxxxxxx>|
|Subject:||Re: Kernel 126.96.36.199 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5)|
|From:||"Dan Williams" <dan.j.williams@xxxxxxxxx>|
|Date:||Mon, 22 Jan 2007 18:44:11 -0700|
|Cc:||"Chuck Ebbert" <cebbert@xxxxxxxxxx>, "Justin Piszcz" <jpiszcz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx|
|Domainkey-signature:||a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=YyPyqkif8t9RDwskczse5LiMPC6QKh4KCunEEhev/m5UCY6L5HrffWLTZehiTS+g+69dBURTq5ETIaxomAk3IZaO/Z7eLSL6b7LTpIht17I1Lz5JK1bBBf98/M1UmgCo8w1SlEo0m3bpFLmYGIZD6/+3fGqcNwCg+FIN+cNCeM4=|
|References:||<Pine.LNX.4.64.0701200718290.29223@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <45B5261B.1050104@xxxxxxxxxx> <17845.13256.284461.992275@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>|
On 1/22/07, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Monday January 22, cebbert@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Justin Piszcz wrote: > > My .config is attached, please let me know if any other information is > > needed and please CC (lkml) as I am not on the list, thanks! > > > > Running Kernel 188.8.131.52 on a MD RAID5 volume. Copying files over Samba to > > the RAID5 running XFS. > > > > Any idea what happened here? .... > > > Without digging too deeply, I'd say you've hit the same bug Sami Farin > and others > have reported starting with 2.6.19: pages mapped with kmap_atomic() > become unmapped > during memcpy() or similar operations. Try disabling preempt -- that > seems to be the > common factor. That is exactly the conclusion I had just come to (a kmap_atomic page must be being unmapped during memcpy). I wasn't aware that others had reported it - thanks for that. Turning off CONFIG_PREEMPT certainly seems like a good idea.
Coming from an ARM background I am not yet versed in the inner workings of kmap_atomic, but if you have time for a question I am curious as to why spin_lock(&sh->lock) is not sufficient pre-emption protection for copy_data() in this case?
|<Prev in Thread]||Current Thread||[Next in Thread>|
|Previous by Date:||RE: EXTENT BOUNDARIES, Barry Naujok|
|Next by Date:||TAKE 959693 - Thread stack size problem with parallized xfs_repair, Barry Naujok|
|Previous by Thread:||Re: Kernel 184.108.40.206 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5), Neil Brown|
|Next by Thread:||Re: Kernel 220.127.116.11 New RAID 5 Bug (oops when writing Samba -> RAID5), Neil Brown|
|Indexes:||[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]|