[Top] [All Lists]

Re: OOM on quotacheck (again?)

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: OOM on quotacheck (again?)
From: Volker <mail@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 04 Oct 2012 16:19:28 +0200
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20121002221525.GU23520@dastard>
References: <5059D2B4.8010300@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120919205924.GC31501@dastard> <505AE2A1.5060703@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120924132113.GL20960@dastard> <5060727D.4000009@xxxxxxxxxx> <506B1667.4010203@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121002200946.GP23520@dastard> <506B5357.6060609@xxxxxxxxxx> <20121002221525.GU23520@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120907 Thunderbird/15.0.1

> So you had a hang on 2.6.37 to do with dquot reclaim, you rebooted
> the server into what I think is a 3.6 kernel.

> Log recovery failed with "bad clientid 0x0", so no superblock
> problem.
I was told by 'mount' that its a superblock-problem :-)

server044:~# mount -a
mount: /dev/sdb1: can't read superblock

What does the bad client-id in syslog indicate?

 It does tend to indicate that 2.6.37 wrote bad data to the
> log, though. If you reboot into 2.6.37, does log recovery run
> successfully? 
Yes. A server which was rebooted on Oct 3rd 07:18am, running 2.6.37 with
a stacktrace involving xfs_qm_dqreclaim_one came back up fine a couple
minutes later on 2.6.37.

If this would have not been working, we would have had way more trouble
with crashed xfs-partitions in the the past since the
xfs_qm_dqreclaim_one-stacktrace has been a very common error for us.

> i.e. does the failure only occur on 2.6.37 -> 3.6
> with a dirty log?
Yes. All 6 servers failed to mount the xfs-partition after they had
xfs-troubles on 2.6.37 and came back up on new 3.6 kernel. I did not try
to reboot them into 2.6.37 though.

> You them mounted the filesystem on the same kernel (has
> xfs_trans_read_buf_map() in the trace, hence the 3.6 version)
Correct. A quota-check was performed on all servers which ended in the
shown stack-trace also on all servers (see pastebin). After a reboot the
partition mounted just fine.

> What mount options are you using on the 2.6.37 kernel?
2.6.37 and 3.6 use the same options:


> If you are upgrading your kernel, you should also upgrade your
> xfsprogs installation as well.
Will do.

- volker

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