xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: failed assertion related to realtime section

To: linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: failed assertion related to realtime section
From: Roman Kononov <kononov@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:04:32 -0500
In-reply-to: <bzyfxcxgd3z.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <h3gd94$clb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <bzyzlb6p239.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A5E7109.7000808@xxxxxxxx> <bzyfxcxgd3z.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: news <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080227 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666
On 2009-07-16 05:02, Olaf Weber wrote:
A quick test on an available system
running a (much) older kernel runs to completion, so this appears to
be a regression.

With which kernel version did you run the test?

Figuring out exactly when/where this regressed will take time.

I went back to 2.6.23 and the same assfail happened with somewhat different call trace:

Assertion failed: xfs_trans_get_block_res(tp) > 0, file: /home/rk/linux-2.6.23/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c, line: 5523

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffff80356a08>] xfs_bunmapi+0x8e8/0x1060
 [<ffffffff80227d2a>] dequeue_entity+0x7a/0xb0
 [<ffffffff80380608>] xfs_itruncate_finish+0x398/0x5c0
 [<ffffffff803a2323>] xfs_free_eofblocks+0x263/0x2b0
 [<ffffffff803a4838>] xfs_release+0x118/0x1e0
 [<ffffffff803ae42a>] xfs_file_release+0x1a/0x30
 [<ffffffff802827cd>] __fput+0xcd/0x1e0
 [<ffffffff8027f5c4>] filp_close+0x54/0x90
 [<ffffffff80280e3d>] sys_close+0x9d/0x110
 [<ffffffff8020bc9e>] system_call+0x7e/0x83

I tried to go back to 2.6.22.19 and older, and the test did not run at all failing to mount:

XFS: bad version
XFS: SB validate failed

Any suggestions?

Roman

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