Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*Kernel\s+crash\s+with\s+2\.6\.29\s+\+\s+nfs\s+\+\s+xfs\s+\(radix\-tree\)\s*$/: 18 ]

Total 18 documents matching your query.

1. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:05:58 +1000
Perhaps a use after free or a reference counting problem. Thanks for reporting it. Which no-one noticed was related to XFS (not in the subject line) and so most people (like me) would have simply del
/archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00163.html (13,603 bytes)

2. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Alex Samad <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 19:56:39 +1000
[snip] thanks my source directory was an openwrt trunk (svn co svn://svn.openwrt.org/openwrt/trunk/) which I had done a compile on, I went to delete it (just about every time it would cause this prob
/archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00165.html (10,618 bytes)

3. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 05:09:16 -0400
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 intere
/archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00221.html (8,976 bytes)

4. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Alex Samad <alex@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 12:54:57 +1000
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
/archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00239.html (11,495 bytes)

5. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 17:21:40 +0000 (UTC)
Resembles me of trouble I've recently seen on some of the machines I maintain after updating from 2.6.27.11 to 2.6.29.[2,3], serving a few dozend LTSP (diskless so-called thin-clients) root filesyste
/archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00246.html (9,214 bytes)

6. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 18:05:47 +0000 (UTC)
Disregard - I just realized that the above statement is untrue, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! --
/archives/xfs/2009-05/msg00247.html (8,186 bytes)

7. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 07:26:57 -0400
Sorry guys, still haven't been able to track it down. Any chance one of you could run with CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG enabled and see if it trips over any of the asserts?
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00058.html (7,450 bytes)

8. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:20:28 +0000 (UTC)
Hi Christoph, I'm running these systems as application servers for schools - with diskless clients. Therefore it's highly impractical to to any debugging during the week (they're going to kill me ;-)
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00069.html (7,711 bytes)

9. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 17:28:45 +0000 (UTC)
Hi Christoph, "Say N unless you are an XFS developer, or you play one on TV." Very nice ;-) I'm have to regret that I'm neither an XFS developer nor do I pretend to be one. Yet, as I understand, I sh
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00091.html (9,888 bytes)

10. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Felix Blyakher <felixb@xxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 13:27:20 -0500
Hi Christoph, Sorry guys, still haven't been able to track it down. Any chance one of you could run with CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG enabled and see if it trips over any of the asserts? "Say N unless you are a
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00092.html (11,554 bytes)

11. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:27:36 -0500
CONFIG_XFS_DEBUG is more of addded checks and asserts, not so much in the way of extra messages - at least, until you actually hit a problem. -Eric
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00093.html (9,455 bytes)

12. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 14:55:58 -0400
That warning is what really makes me freak out, as it really, really shouldn't happen. Can you see if it gives any additional useful output with the patch below? Index: linux-2.6/fs/exportfs/expfs.c
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00094.html (10,490 bytes)

13. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 18:55:21 +0000 (UTC)
reconnect_path: npd != pd reconnect_path: npd != pd reconnect_path: npd != pd .... on a thorougly checked filesystem, plus the NFS service ceasing to serve clients. Obviously this is not covered by t
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00095.html (9,371 bytes)

14. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 20:00:21 +0000 (UTC)
Find here a package containing the respective syslog section plus a (I think so) non-obfuscated metadump (in order to corellate to the directory names to the syslog): http://foxtrot.mgras.net/static/
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00096.html (9,144 bytes)

15. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 16:44:44 -0400
So we're getting duplicate in-core inodes for the same inode number somehow. That also explains the earlier radix-tree bug because we would delete the node from the radix tree when the first instance
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00097.html (19,435 bytes)

16. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 2009 21:26:58 +0000 (UTC)
http://foxtrot.mgras.net/static/messages-20090607.2.bz2 I'm sorry but I'll have to boot the system using the previous kernel, again, as people expect to have their system in a reliably working state
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00098.html (8,850 bytes)

17. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Martin Spott <Martin.Spott@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:13:18 +0000 (UTC)
Next 'maintenance window' ;-) starts wednesday evening. Please advise if you'd like me to perform further tests, Martin. -- Unix _IS_ user friendly - it's just selective about who its friends are ! -
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00107.html (9,276 bytes)

18. Re: Kernel crash with 2.6.29 + nfs + xfs (radix-tree) (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 04:40:06 -0400
For now I'd love you to test the locking patch I sent you in my last mail. In the meantime I still fail to reproduce anything like your problem locally. I know we do need to reboot the machine or une
/archives/xfs/2009-06/msg00115.html (10,465 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu