xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2)

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: XFS assertion from truncate. (3.10-rc2)
From: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2013 14:13:50 -0400
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20130523151721.GC16419@xxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx>, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20130522025605.GA29767@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130522040318.GG29466@dastard> <20130522041521.GA1837@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130522051243.GH29466@dastard> <20130522052938.GA2573@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130522055147.GI29466@dastard> <20130522142252.GB1407@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130522161946.GA25906@xxxxxxxxxx> <20130522220933.GV24543@dastard> <20130523151721.GC16419@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 11:17:21AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 > On Thu, May 23, 2013 at 08:09:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
 >  > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 12:19:46PM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 >  > > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 10:22:52AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
 >  > >  > On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 03:51:47PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
 >  > >  > 
 >  > >  >  > > Tomorrow I'll also try running some older kernels with the same
 >  > >  >  > > options to see if it's something new, or an older bug. This is a
 >  > >  >  > > new machine, so it may be something that's been around for a
 >  > >  >  > > while, and for whatever reason, my other machines don't hit
 >  > >  >  > > this.
 >  > >  >  > 
 >  > >  >  > Another thing that just occurred to me - what compiler are you
 >  > >  >  > using?  We had a report last week on #xfs that xfsdump was failing
 >  > >  >  > with bad checksums because of link time optimisation (LTO) in
 >  > >  >  > gcc-4.8.0. When they turned that off, everything worked fine. So 
 > if
 >  > >  >  > you are using 4.8.0, perhaps trying a different compiler might be 
 > a
 >  > >  >  > good idea, too.
 >  > >  > 
 >  > >  > Yeah, this is 4.8.0. This box is running F19-beta. 
 >  > >  > I managed to shoehorn the gcc-4.7 from f18 on there though.
 >  > >  > Bug reproduced instantly, so I think we can rule out compiler.
 >  > >  > 
 >  > >  > I ran 3.9 with the same debug options. Seems stable.
 >  > >  > I'll do a bisect.
 >  > > 
 >  > > good news.  It wasn't until I started bisecting I realised I was still
 >  > > carrying this patch from you to fix slab corruption I was seeing.
 >  > > 
 >  > > It seems to be the culprit (or is masking another problem -- I had to 
 > apply
 >  > > it at each step of the bisect to get past the slab corruption bug).
 >  > 
 >  > That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. The fix in the xfsdev
 >  > tree is a little different:
 >  > 
 >  > 
 > http://oss.sgi.com/cgi-bin/gitweb.cgi?p=xfs/xfs.git;a=commitdiff;h=52c24ad39ff02d7bd73c92eb0c926fb44984a41d
 > 
 > I did an rc2 build with just that commit on top, and can't reproduce this at 
 > all now.
 > (At least not with the reproducer that worked previously).

Ok, scratch all that. I can reproduce it again, it just takes longer.
(And typically, I didn't have your debug patch on top for that run.. nnnngh)

        Dave


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