Hi
I had a partition about 400G of xfs (lvm on a raid6 device) with source
tree of openwrt trunk on the partition (~200-300M of data and lots of
files - current tree ~ 40000 )
I have a VM (Virtualbox 2.2 - debian debi386 2.6.29-2) on the same machine that
had mounted the
partition via nfs.
when I attempted to do a rm -fr trunk is when i saw problems - or on
builds (specially with make clean first)
from exports
/exports/shared
-no_root_squash,insecure,wdelay,no_subtree_check,async,mp=/exports/shared
192.168.8.0/22(rw) mmac(all_squash,anonuid=1025,anongid=1029)
from the VM fstab
nfs.hme1.samad.com.au:/exports/shared /exports/shared nfs
rw,exec,auto,async,_netdev,proto=udp 0 0
/home/alex/wrk/openwrt/tmp
/exports/shared/src/openwrt/kamikaze/src/svn/trunk/tmp none
rw,bind,exec,auto,async,_netdev 0 0
/home/alex/wrk/openwrt/staging_dir
/exports/shared/src/openwrt/kamikaze/src/svn/trunk/staging_dir
none rw,bind,exec,auto,async,_netdev 0 0
/home/alex/wrk/openwrt/build_dir
/exports/shared/src/openwrt/kamikaze/src/svn/trunk/build_dir none
rw,bind,exec,auto,async,_netdev 0 0
note I bind local filesystem to the work directories
I have attached the .config
I have since change the partition to ext3 and I have not seen any
problems.
I haven't gotten any messages left in my syslog, but I still have the
one on the debian bug report
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=526406
Alex
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 05:09:16AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> So you're having primary a NFS workload, right? Andrew had some
> dmesg output in bugzilla (please send this stuff to the list instead
> of hiding it in bugzilla if possible, BTW) that looks quite interesting:
>
> May 24 08:48:00 (none) last message repeated 61 times
>
> May 24 08:48:47 (none) last message repeated 760 times
>
> May 24 08:50:55 (none) kernel: reconnect_path: npd != pd
>
> May 24 08:50:55 (none) last message repeated 9 times
>
> May 24 08:55:04 (none) kernel: reconnect_path: npd != pd
>
> May 24 08:56:05 (none) last message repeated 47 times
>
> May 24 08:56:49 (none) last message repeated 419 times
>
> which means we are in deep trouble with the dcache coherency. Also
> the only way the bug you two report could happen from my audit is
> we get ->destroy_inode called twice for the same inode.
>
> So defintively some deep problems here. Alex and Andrew, can you send
> me your .config, and a description of the workload your seing this on?
> Also the /etc/exports file would be interesting.
>
config-2.6.29-2-amd64
Description: Text document
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
|