On Tue, Mar 07, 2017 at 03:49:52PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
> >>> If the patches pass all tests on your side, could you please take them in
> >>> and
> >> propagate further?
> >>> I will continue with other kernel subsystems.
> >>
> >> The patchset itself looks like a common cleanup, while I did encounter
> >> several cases (almost all scrub tests) causing kernel warning due to
> >> underflow.
> >
> > Oh, could you please send me the warning outputs? I can hopefully analyze
> > and fix them.
>
> Attached. Which is the generated by running btrfs/070 test case.
> And I canceled the case almost instantly, so output is not much, but
> still contains enough info.
>
> Both refcount_inc() and refcount_sub_and_test() are causing warning.
>
> So now I'm not sure which is the cause, btrfs or bad use of refcount?
We we do atomic_inc to get the first reference after initialization in
scrub_pages, instead of atomic_set (or an equivalent):
2266 spage = kzalloc(sizeof(*spage), GFP_KERNEL);
2267 if (!spage) {
...
2274 }
...
2276 scrub_page_get(spage);
so the references are 0 and refcount_inc will catch that, the fix is simple.
The refcount_sub_and_test reports seem to catch a bug in refcounting, I'm
analyzing it right now.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
