xfs-masters
[Top] [All Lists]

[xfs-masters] Re: [BUG]: soft lock detected

To: Yi CDL Yang <yyangcdl@xxxxxxxxxx>, dgc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [xfs-masters] Re: [BUG]: soft lock detected
From: Nathan Scott <nathans@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 08:31:13 +1000
Cc: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <OFE45AA35E.CBCEE6A2-ON482571CB.00362A71-482571CB.003716BA@cn.ibm.com>; from yyangcdl@cn.ibm.com on Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:04:21PM +0800
References: <OFE45AA35E.CBCEE6A2-ON482571CB.00362A71-482571CB.003716BA@cn.ibm.com>
Reply-to: xfs-masters@xxxxxxxxxxx
Sender: xfs-masters-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mutt/1.2.5i
On Tue, Aug 15, 2006 at 06:04:21PM +0800, Yi CDL Yang wrote:
> ...
> When I stress XFS filesystem, I find a bug, I can regenerate it on
> 2.6.18-rc3 and 2.6.18-rc4, my steps is:
> # mount /dev/sda5 /mnt/sda5
> #su oneuser
> $ mkdir /mnt/sda5/xfstest
> $ cd /mnt/sda5
> $ bonnie++ -d xfstest -s 2048 -r 512
> 
> Note: /dev/sda5 has only 2G space.

Is it out of space when the problem crops up (i.e. ~100% full?)

> After a while, kernel will output the following debug information:
> 
> BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#0!
> Call Trace:
> [C0000001C7E5E880] [C00000000000EBBC] .show_stack+0x68/0x1b0 (unreliable)
> [C0000001C7E5E920] [C0000000000849D0] .softlockup_tick+0xf0/0x128
> [C0000001C7E5E9D0] [C00000000006413C] .run_local_timers+0x1c/0x30
> [C0000001C7E5EA50] [C00000000001FFF0] .timer_interrupt+0xa8/0x474
> [C0000001C7E5EB30] [C0000000000034EC] decrementer_common+0xec/0x100
> --- Exception: 901 at .find_next_bit+0xac/0xbc
>     LR = .__next_cpu+0x20/0x44
> [C0000001C7E5EE20] [C00000018824C170] 0xc00000018824c170 (unreliable)
> [C0000001C7E5EEA0] [D000000000973018] .xfs_icsb_disable_counter+0x90/0x1ac
> [xfs]
> [C0000001C7E5EF60] [D000000000973274] .xfs_icsb_balance_counter+0x70/0x294
> [xfs]

Dave, looks like one for you mate?

> According to these information, I can't find the reason of the problem, for
> soft lockup, I think
> only preemption disabling or interrupt disabling can result in this, but
> the above functions don't
> run such an operation, I don't know what is your idea?

Could you put your .config somewhere we can have a look?

thanks.

-- 
Nathan


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