| To: | Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: xfs resize: primary superblock is not updated immediately |
| From: | Alex Lyakas <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:46:58 +0200 |
| Cc: | Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Danny Shavit <danny@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Delivered-to: | xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| Dkim-signature: | v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zadarastorage-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc; bh=LhFdBvVPT2bn++MXMkLGljphKDMIQBvDpNcOpn1dhBA=; b=cIWGN9Vz7jk7nWSA3Ads1oZinkvkC9A1venwjTzZs5a38U4dVukSldZEkkxPxV5nX+ ++D8LeOOxlPnCEn6KvqW9M1FbKFjJGR9pSmlSnMjD4S/g/1r6hCHW6tN2Mo4la51IqTS TDmMT2ZeoQnCnXXyDojZhr3xoc4FgSVmdMcVrpaiMrWoO4W4Po8eDcwnej3khT16/2hz PLZxULnmuQ5CM9GY9UibtI9Em9rrb4aGcf3eKicfVTN3+i3NNxJmvsFkCzsAEZeGieXI rXW3FyqRU1WMTkb+0KStPsbzhXDUdNy//ufqY3L/8ikB5Oc71awvWTV6RzXvgLe62nMC d0Rg== |
| In-reply-to: | <20160303213108.GQ30721@dastard> |
| References: | <3685DFAD20214109878873CF81232704@alyakaslap> <20160222212019.GI25832@dastard> <CAOcd+r1XY2kcp+qJ=mPOAQSmb90QUnLfmT3-FkMjQN_+Ejmt8A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20160222235628.GK25832@dastard> <D5578D3E98EE48B88EA9A1126B671155@alyakaslap> <20160223225926.GN25832@dastard> <BC0CC25E00CE4CEDA1FFDFC0A2F38742@alyakaslap> <20160229211628.GK29057@dastard> <20160301072011.GF30721@dastard> <E965894DE8D542788CCE98F72C218C05@alyakaslap> <20160303213108.GQ30721@dastard> |
Hello Dave, On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 11:31 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 03, 2016 at 11:18:43AM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote: >> Hello Dave, >> Thanks for the patch! I confirm that it fixes the scenario. >> >> At [1] please find all the blknos that are being used during the log >> recovery (if that's of any interest). > .... >> Mar 3 11:17:41 vc-00-00-350-dev kernel: [ 68.129739] >> _xfs_buf_find: blkno=200705 eofs=204800 >m_sb.sb_dblocks=25600 >> Mar 3 11:17:41 vc-00-00-350-dev kernel: [ 68.129746] >> _xfs_buf_find: blkno=200705 eofs=204800 >m_sb.sb_dblocks=25600 > > Where is the warning that this block is out of range? Perhaps you are being confused by the ">" mark that appears in the prints? This was definitely added by mistake, it appears on every print. I apologize for that. If not, then my understanding is that 200705 is still less than 204800, so this block number is not out of range. And since we have added the new pag structure, the issue is now fixed. Otherwise, I can provide an XFS metadump for you to analyze. Thanks, Alex. > > And why didn't recovery fail at this point because the block > requested is out of range and so the buffer lookup should have > failed? > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | Re: xfs trace in 4.4.2 / also in 4.3.3 WARNING fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 xfs_vm_releasepage, Stefan Priebe |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: xfs resize: primary superblock is not updated immediately, Eric Sandeen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: xfs resize: primary superblock is not updated immediately, Dave Chinner |
| Next by Thread: | Re: xfs resize: primary superblock is not updated immediately, Eric Sandeen |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |