xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: 2.6.30-06725: xfs_fsr: Assertion failed: ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, f

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.30-06725: xfs_fsr: Assertion failed: ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c, line: 5991
From: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 22:17:25 +0400
Cc: Lachlan McIlroy <lmcilroy@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=KHPIXd+Ca3HnWCHkp6ei7bO5l3Coo/tgs8lPJwTFFEs=; b=L5ugDtPbFd5xjZhlYn/4j48OQt0oJZ4lERH2Y3onsMl2i1cOaip6r0O9k5wSnVPz9n 7xJhazYCGp/Xl8w2uZSp6IJG2cDYqzzgJrm7f9KSJjSyJW3A7NVQTHYQ0Rc8GzMc58LA o1FmWzwGuH9P67DBZqNjOWxzbWbzXTXqppSPY=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=JgySZdRJMrqmwcCN8HxgcOO15Ulda4o+FMPS5maN+pIt9YjTQcuS89fzlWosV4dPzh F6LP8HIrNMYhTnFc+B0DGeux6pwgG+Tq7UETbd2afmbXSnOdmMjgjTRCFrT2IMQuNTCx AXwZDuQl/jTCf8o0mQdbbNB1OJOJuTU0scbHI=
In-reply-to: <20090620180116.GD3984@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <941396568.292261245481145500.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <961884583.292281245481464174.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090620180116.GD3984@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
2009/6/20 Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2009 at 03:04:24AM -0400, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> I've seen this assertion before and if it's the problem I think it
>> is then it should be fixed with this patch:
>>
>> http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2009-02/msg00176.html
>>
>> It shouldn't be difficult to test this too - If you run about 1024
>> dd writers to separate 100MB files and then run xfs_bmap on each
>> file afterwards it should assert.
>
> Thas is in a filesystem not big enough to actually fit those files,
> right?  Might be worth adding a testcase like this..
>
> Alex, can you give that patch a try?

Yes, I have applied and testing it now.
I will let you know.
Thanks.

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