Mail Archive Search: <+subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.6\.30\s+panic\s+\-\s+xfs_fs_destroy

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.6\.30\s+panic\s+\-\s+xfs_fs_destroy_inode\s*$/: 20 ]

Total 20 documents matching your query.

1. 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 19:04:19 +0200; Hi all, We are experiencing kernel panics on servers running 2.6.29(.1) and 2.6.30. I've included two attachments to demonstrate. The error is: Kernel panic - not syncing: xfs_fs_destroy_inode: canno; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00233.html (6,470 bytes)
2. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 16:31:12 -0500; It's not known to me, was this a recent upgrade? (IOW, did it start with .29(.1)? -Eric; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00234.html (7,090 bytes)
3. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 09:55:18 +0200; We are experiencing kernel panics on servers running 2.6.29(.1) and 2.6.30. I've included two attachments to demonstrate. The error is: Kernel panic - not syncing: xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclai; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00237.html (8,494 bytes)
4. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 12:18:13 +0200; Unfortunately another panic. See attachment. Would love to receive some advice on this issue. Thanks in advance. -Patrick Patrick Schreurs wrote: Eric Sandeen wrote: Patrick Schreurs wrote: Hi all, W; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00257.html (9,525 bytes)
5. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 08:29:06 -0500; Others aren't hitting this, what sort of workload are you running when you hit it? I have not had time to look at it yet but some sort of testcase may greatly help. -Eric Unfortunately another panic.; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00258.html (10,435 bytes)
6. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2009 18:31:01 +0200; Just had another one. It's likely we'll have to downgrade to 2.6.28.x. These servers have 28 SCSI disks mounted separately (JBOD). The workload is basically i/o load (90% read, 10% write) from these; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00259.html (12,545 bytes)
7. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 09:24:06 +0200; Another one (see attachement). This time on a server with SAS drives and without the lazy-count option: meta-data=/dev/sdb isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=27471812 blks = sectsz=512 attr=2 data = bsize=4; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00283.html (14,158 bytes)
8. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Lachlan McIlroy <lmcilroy@xxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 04:17:13 -0400 (EDT); It looks to me like xfs_reclaim_inode() has returned EAGAIN because the XFS_RECLAIM flag was set on the xfs inode. This implies we are trying to reclaim an inode that is already in the process of bei; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00284.html (15,218 bytes)
9. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 13:13:05 -0400; Well, having the reclaim already in progress means we're racing here. And I suspect this fits into the other bugs with possibly duplicat inodes we see after the inode+xfs_inode unification.; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00292.html (8,943 bytes)
10. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:13:57 +0200; Hi (again), Anyone has any advice to prevent this from happening? We've seen 10 crashes in the last 14 days. Would it be helpful to enable CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG? Does this result in a big performance hit; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00337.html (10,761 bytes)
11. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:42:56 -0400; For now please downgrade to the latest 2.6.28, yes. I hope I will have time and machine ressources to dig deeper into the problem this week.; /archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00338.html (9,825 bytes)
12. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2009 08:44:41 -0400; Actually you might want to give this patch a try which fixes a race affecting the reclaim tag in iget: Index: xfs/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c == -- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/xfs_iget.c 2009-06-04 13:27:41.901946950 +020; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00000.html (16,928 bytes)
13. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:09:19 +0200; Thanks Christoph, we'll try this out in the next couple of days and let you know. Tommy; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00018.html (9,678 bytes)
14. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:31:30 +0200; Hi Christoph, With this patch we see the following: kernel BUG at fs/inode.c:1288! invalid opcode: 0000 [#2] SMP last sysfs file: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu3/cache/index2/shared_cpu_map CPU 1 Module; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00021.html (22,164 bytes)
15. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 21:19:43 +0200; Hi Christoph, I saw some patches from your hand on this list ("fixes for memory allocator recursions into the filesystem"). Are these patches related to this issue? Thanks, -Patrick Anyone has any ad; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00206.html (10,173 bytes)
16. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 20 Jul 2009 16:14:49 -0400; I don't think they are, but if you have sparse testing cycles it would be great if you could test it. I'm a bit overloaded right now and can't do as much debugging of these problems as I'd wish to.; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00207.html (9,202 bytes)
17. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2009 10:12:25 -0400; Okay, I think I figured out what this is. You hit the case where we re-use an inode that is gone from the VFS point of view, but still in xfs reclaimable state. We reinitialize it using inode_init_al; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00216.html (10,083 bytes)
18. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2009 10:55:54 +0200; Hi, Unfortunately we still get errors, with this patch on top of the previous one: The difference is that is now crashes within an hour instead of once a week, so that might be good for troubleshooti; /archives/xfs/2009-07/msg00223.html (16,133 bytes)
19. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Mon, 17 Aug 2009 17:14:37 -0400; Hi Tommy and sorry for dropping the ball on this, I didn't remember this mail anymore until I look for more reporters of the inode related problems. Current mainline (Linus' git as of today) has a lo; /archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00176.html (9,872 bytes)
20. Re: 2.6.30 panic - xfs_fs_destroy_inode (score: 1): Author: Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:24:59 +0200; Hi Chris, no problem. We're always busy ourself too. We will check out the new fixes but we need some time to deploy them. We will take the extra debug info with it just in case. We'll report back wh; /archives/xfs/2009-08/msg00215.html (12,714 bytes)

Current List: 1 - 20
Page: [1]