xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: xfs problems (possibly after upgrading from linux kernel 2.6.27.10 t

To: Carsten Aulbert <carsten.aulbert@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: xfs problems (possibly after upgrading from linux kernel 2.6.27.10 to .14)
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:01:58 +0100
In-reply-to: <20090219061925.GE8830@disturbed>
References: <499ACE6C.4060304@xxxxxxxxxx> <20090218091935.GD8830@disturbed> <499BD6BB.2000406@xxxxxxxxxx> <20090219061925.GE8830@disturbed>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.9i
On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 05:19:25PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:36:59AM +0100, Carsten Aulbert wrote:
> > >> plus a few more nodes showing the same characteristics 
> > > 
> > > Hmmmm. Did this show up in 2.6.27.10? Or did it start occurring only
> > > after you upgraded from .10 to .14?
> > 
> > As far as I can see this only happened after the upgrade about 14 days
> > ago. What strikes me odd is that we only had this occurring massively on
> > Monday and Tuesday this week.
> > 
> > I don't know if a certain access pattern could trigger this somehow.
> 
> I suspect so. We've already had XFS trigger one bug in the new
> lockless pagecache code, and the fix for that went in 2.6.27.11 -
> between the good version and the version that you've been seeing
> these memory corruptions on. I'm wondering if that fix exposed or
> introduced another bug that you've hit....

Highly unlikely. It only introduces constraints on how the
compiler may generate code, so it would have to be a compiler
bug to cause a bug I think.

I wonder how long you've been running with 2.6.27 based kernels
without corruption?

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>