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: Lachlan McIlroy <lmcilroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 20:29:00 -0400 (EDT)
Cc: Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@xxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <175383275.303721245629906853.JavaMail.root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Reply-to: Lachlan McIlroy <lmcilroy@xxxxxxxxxx>
----- "Christoph Hellwig" <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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..
Smaller files might work too.  The trick will be to get enough threads
flushing files at the same time that we exhaust the reserved space pool
(ie xfs_trans_reserve() returns ENOSPC even when the XFS_TRANS_RESERVE
flag is used).

> 
> Alex, can you give that patch a try?
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

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