xfs
[Top] [All Lists]
<prev [Date] next>
[Advanced]
 <prev [Thread] next>

Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim

from [Tommy van Leeuwen] [Permanent Link][Original]
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim
From: Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:41:29 +0100
Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Bas Couwenberg <bas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, XFS List <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:sender:received:in-reply-to :references:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc :content-type; bh=FafWp5HHb9JnIgJD481O41fBIgviPPDCAwtken1PMUs=; b=SgtmYO1Vm5BPRJDllIhZOdMQo7pPp3tmMclViiZxHr4idd3NtumbKG10lOf/nkAT2m 5v+ty7kKMlJE2wegD1hqxhN54Qh+uLe31EPeH0X+75kCsKy/RoEk6Hhq9CGi5b+4oOE6 tPsYIRRpbh/xAgTvnnBUK3Mnmad+Sdri+JEWI=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; b=fj6FWyOV5tKnl5JtOvSxK0P+9QZHxhKIoigXtuMaumKAMnH+DzUhmSpdyrO1FBY/MF PejucD+0f/41rt5NfnCr5rMUiQAlMOv+8q7eOY7saIPU4PieADM6nDZExQUorzD1mzYj 5UF6iOZPGUDreQHA4h5PSPfVtp+cL3rrumNHM=
In-reply-to: <20091022085937.GA2039@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4AC60D27.9060703@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4ACB080D.3010708@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091007011926.GB32032@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4AD18C8D.90808@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091012233854.GA29446@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091019011600.GO9464@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091019035426.GB18296@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091020034048.GA9464@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <89c4f90c0910210245h4691cd82hd1d63f5ed72fb2e3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20091022085937.GA2039@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: chiparus@xxxxxxxxx 
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 9:59 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> This is the full patch we're using now on 2.6.31.4. (Just running btw
>> so no results yet).
>
> Yes, that looks like what you should be testing with..  Thanks a lot
> again!

Hello Christoph,

We had two more crashes during the weekend. The interresting part is
it seems it's not crashing at xfs anymore directly. And both crashes
happen at address 0200200 (just like one of the previous crashes).

Thanks again for looking into this.

Cheers,
Tommy

Attachment: sb08.jpg
Description: JPEG image

Attachment: sb07.jpg
Description: JPEG image

[More with this subject...]
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Previous by Date:  Re: xfsprogs 3.0.5 "release", Eric Sandeen
Next by Date:  xfsrestore restoring MANY more files/dirs than expected, why?, Michael Lueck
Previous by Thread:  Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim, Christoph Hellwig
Next by Thread:  Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim, Tommy van Leeuwen
Indexes:  [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]