xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Oops at xfs_bmbt_get_startoff in SLES 10 2.6.16

To: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Oops at xfs_bmbt_get_startoff in SLES 10 2.6.16
From: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 21:38:06 -0500
Cc: kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <53FCDA81-0C62-4B16-AAA7-C2FF03C78D01@xxxxxxx>
References: <64323.24.80.224.145.1236883814.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49B9611F.5040009@xxxxxxxxxxx> <58707.24.80.224.145.1236899620.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <53630.24.80.224.145.1240361692.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <49EE7E17.8050006@xxxxxxxxxxx> <B32B0133-B835-4D31-B52A-364F607B9866@xxxxxxx> <49EE81DB.7040304@xxxxxxxxxxx> <53FCDA81-0C62-4B16-AAA7-C2FF03C78D01@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (Macintosh/20090302)
Felix Blyakher wrote:
> On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:32 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> 
>> Felix Blyakher wrote:
>>> On Apr 21, 2009, at 9:16 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kevin Jamieson wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, March 12, 2009 4:13 pm, Kevin Jamieson wrote:
>>>>>> On Thu, March 12, 2009 12:23 pm, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For SLES that usually is the best route...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00220.html
>>>>>>> looks
>>>>>>> applicable... don't think it ever got merged though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> perhaps you could test it?
>>>>>> Thanks, Eric. I will test Lachlan's patch on our system.
>>>>> To follow this up, since applying the patch from the above thread
>>>>> there
>>>>> have been no re-occurrences of the issue on our test servers over
>>>>> the past
>>>>> month.
>>>> And you hit it pretty reliably before, right?  Sounds like we need  
>>>> to
>>>> give that a pretty strong eyeball and get it merged, perhaps.
>>> I was looking at this patch too.
>>> But I could never reproduce the problem, even with Lachlan's test
>>> program. Kevin, any idea what kind of io load triggered this problem?
>>> The patch looks right, but I really want to prove the problem
>>> exists, and the patch addresses it.
>>>
>>> Felix
>>>
>> FWIW I can't reproduce either, with the stated commandline.
>>
>> Should try it with a 1k blocksize, though - maybe Lachlan tested 4k on
>> 16k page ia64?
> 
> That's what I've tested on.

Ah, well, I just spoke with Lachlan and he said he tested on x86_64,
4k/4k.  So hrm...

-Eric

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