Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.kernel > #1498973 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2016-10-11 17:20 +0200 |
| Last post | 2016-10-11 18:00 +0200 |
| Articles | 3 — 2 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel
This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by
below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.
Re: btrfs bio linked list corruption. Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 17:20 +0200
Re: btrfs bio linked list corruption. Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 17:30 +0200
Re: btrfs bio linked list corruption. Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> - 2016-10-11 18:00 +0200
| From | Al Viro <viro@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 17:20 +0200 |
| Subject | Re: btrfs bio linked list corruption. |
| Message-ID | <sr70t-8n0-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:45:08AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > This is from Linus' current tree, with Al's iovec fixups on top. Those iovec fixups are in the current tree... TBH, I don't see anything in splice-related stuff that could come anywhere near that (short of some general memory corruption having random effects of that sort). Could you try to bisect that sucker, or is it too hard to reproduce?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 17:30 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sr7a9-8qo-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1498973 |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:11:39PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:45:08AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > This is from Linus' current tree, with Al's iovec fixups on top. > > Those iovec fixups are in the current tree... ah yeah, git quietly dropped my local copy when I rebased so I didn't notice. > TBH, I don't see anything > in splice-related stuff that could come anywhere near that (short of > some general memory corruption having random effects of that sort). > > Could you try to bisect that sucker, or is it too hard to reproduce? Only hit it the once overnight so far. Will see if I can find a better way to reproduce today. Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2016-10-11 18:00 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <sr7Dc-84-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #1498975 |
On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:20:41AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On 10/11/2016 11:19 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 04:11:39PM +0100, Al Viro wrote: > > > On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 10:45:08AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > This is from Linus' current tree, with Al's iovec fixups on top. > > > > > > Those iovec fixups are in the current tree... > > > > ah yeah, git quietly dropped my local copy when I rebased so I didn't notice. > > > > > TBH, I don't see anything > > > in splice-related stuff that could come anywhere near that (short of > > > some general memory corruption having random effects of that sort). > > > > > > Could you try to bisect that sucker, or is it too hard to reproduce? > > > > Only hit it the once overnight so far. Will see if I can find a better way to > > reproduce today. > > This call trace is reading metadata so we can finish the truncate. I'd > say adding more memory pressure would make it happen more often. That story checks out. There were a bunch of oom's in the log before this. Dave
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel
csiph-web