xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS: Assertion failed: first <= last && last < BBTOB(bp->b_length),

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS: Assertion failed: first <= last && last < BBTOB(bp->b_length), file: fs/xfs/xfs_trans_buf.c, line: 568
From: "Michael L. Semon" <mlsemon35@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 13:41:53 -0400
Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>, Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>, "xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx" <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=iX6F0GByRY2yk6MWPh9Xeo+IaSbrwUL5b5jBAN/345I=; b=WzFP68wyckY3Kkd0swA8fz06ufmIm7UO/82Fxok2KeXBXELgUrzGOZCv4ZpYSnfAWf L72xXCT4rpON0XKKAf90Zl+WIb+RWptNqs4en+MvGRPmyknZ9KYtuGcYLomT5YyFzTqI utn6NdkWMFFD55EqqofxHzYBVpH6A71CgO44gmEyDCGVvVNyFBQKN6LOKSCuxlPW52Jk MVcvR94C50EcILUVgH9cYjkVgZ+rj8u54SQAbLB+zCuRm1GtpIPj7gqjcOpDEfzpOL3G MvtrEPMti8V/fj2Mgux0qbBuIzq4uj6Elr+HrX9Qrq3624/guW7gmkr1Za6gcuOtjwrJ qytA==
In-reply-to: <20130916154423.GA455@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <52165830.8050006@xxxxxxxxxx> <52325369.1070001@xxxxxxx> <20130916154423.GA455@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
On Mon, Sep 16, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 06:51:05PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>> The secret to tripping over the bug is run the test until fsstress
>> fills the filesystem before removing the files. So an error
>> handling?
>>
>> I use the test:
>>
>> #!/bin/sh
>>
>> ltp/fsstress -z -s 1378390208 -fsymlink=1 -n9999999 -p4 -d /test2
>> cd /test2
>> sync
>> rm -rf *
>>
>> If your filesystem is smaller, decrease the -n to make the test faster.
>>
>> I have still not gotten a core, though Michael Semon sent one.
>
> It would be useful if we could wire this up for xfstests

Just set it up accurately because it takes a long time.   It takes a
while to create the links.  Additionally, fsstress will keep iterating
after the FS is full, and all those extra iterations take time.

In testing on x86, Brian's test will succeed in 10 GB but fail in 11
GB.  I don't know if that is the case on x86_64 as well.  After the
failure case is met and the rm operation hits the assert, continued
mount-and-rm operations will also cause the assert to fire, without
needing to fill the FS with links again.  I don't know when that
"bonus condition" stops happening.  xfs_repair makes matters
worse, IIRC.

That's about all I can add.  Thanks!

Michael

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