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: Wed, 05 Aug 2009 19:38:18 -0500
In-reply-to: <bzyiqh21oab.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <h3gd94$clb$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <bzyzlb6p239.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A5E7109.7000808@xxxxxxxx> <bzyfxcxgd3z.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4A78A260.1040501@xxxxxxxx> <bzyiqh21oab.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: news <news@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.22 (X11/20090608)
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.

Did you have the XFS_DEBUG option on? Without it, the filesystem with realtime does not die right away, but hangs or crashes later.


With which kernel version did you run the test?

Heavily-patched 2.6.16, which is what I had readily available at that
point.  But most or all of those patches + additional changes should
be in current XFS.


Vanilla 2.6.16.19 without the lazy-counters option:

Assertion failed: ((tp)->t_blk_res) > 0, file: /home/rk/linux-2.6.16.19/fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c, line: 5452

Call Trace:
<ffffffff801e4b3f>{xfs_bunmapi+1335}
<ffffffff8020c5c0>{xfs_itruncate_finish+769}
<ffffffff8022be3c>{xfs_inactive_free_eofblocks+420}
<ffffffff8022bf40>{xfs_release+190}
<ffffffff80232e27>{linvfs_release+26}
<ffffffff80169c60>{__fput+189}
<ffffffff8016733a>{filp_close+93}
<ffffffff801673db>{sys_close+150}
<ffffffff8010aa2a>{system_call+126}

It looks like it never worked.

Any hope? :-(

Roman

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