I found another bug. There are codes (btrfs_save_ino_cache) that
modify fs trees after
create_pending_snapshots is called. This can corrupt your fs.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> Cc: Josef
>
> I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus'
>
Yan, Zheng wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
>> Excerpts from Yan, Zheng's message of 2011-06-13 10:58:35 -0400:
>>> The usage of trans_mutex in relocation code is subtle. It controls
>>> interaction of relocation
>>> with transaction start, transaction commit and snapsh
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 3:55 AM, Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from Yan, Zheng's message of 2011-06-13 10:58:35 -0400:
>> The usage of trans_mutex in relocation code is subtle. It controls
>> interaction of relocation
>> with transaction start, transaction commit and snapshot creation.
>> Simple r
Excerpts from Yan, Zheng's message of 2011-06-13 10:58:35 -0400:
> The usage of trans_mutex in relocation code is subtle. It controls
> interaction of relocation
> with transaction start, transaction commit and snapshot creation.
> Simple replacing
> trans_mutex with trans_lock is wrong.
So, I've
Excerpts from Chris Mason's message of 2011-06-13 09:12:06 -0400:
> Excerpts from Li Zefan's message of 2011-06-13 03:13:13 -0400:
> > Cc: Josef
> >
> > I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus'
> > kernel.
> >
> > I ran "btrfs fi bal /tes
Excerpts from Yan, Zheng's message of 2011-06-13 10:58:35 -0400:
> The usage of trans_mutex in relocation code is subtle. It controls
> interaction of relocation
> with transaction start, transaction commit and snapshot creation.
> Simple replacing
> trans_mutex with trans_lock is wrong.
What requ
The usage of trans_mutex in relocation code is subtle. It controls
interaction of relocation
with transaction start, transaction commit and snapshot creation.
Simple replacing
trans_mutex with trans_lock is wrong.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> Cc: Josef
>
> I encount
Excerpts from Li Zefan's message of 2011-06-13 03:13:13 -0400:
> Cc: Josef
>
> I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus'
> kernel.
>
> I ran "btrfs fi bal /test5" command, and mount option of /test5
> is as follows:
>
> >
Yan, Zheng wrote:
> Add a mutex to btrfs_init_reloc_root() to prevent the reloc tree
> creation from concurrent execution.
Thanks!
Unfortunately I can still encounter BUG() in difference places in
each run:
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6173!
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2567!
>
>
Add a mutex to btrfs_init_reloc_root() to prevent the reloc tree
creation from concurrent execution.
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Li Zefan wrote:
> Cc: Josef
>
> I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus'
> kernel.
>
> I ran "btrfs fi bal
Cc: Josef
I encountered following panic using 'btrfs-unstable + for-linus'
kernel.
I ran "btrfs fi bal /test5" command, and mount option of /test5
is as follows:
/dev/sdc3 on /test5 type btrfs
(rw,space_cache,compress=lzo,in
(2011/06/08 0:46), Chris Mason wrote:
> Excerpts from liubo's message of 2011-06-07 04:36:56 -0400:
>> On 06/07/2011 04:24 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
>>> (2011/06/07 15:17), Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
(2011/06/07 14:59), Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> Hi liubo,
>
> (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote:
>>
Excerpts from liubo's message of 2011-06-07 04:36:56 -0400:
> On 06/07/2011 04:24 PM, Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> > (2011/06/07 15:17), Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> >> (2011/06/07 14:59), Tsutomu Itoh wrote:
> >>> Hi liubo,
> >>>
> >>> (2011/06/07 14:31), liubo wrote:
> On 06/06/2011 04:33 PM, Tsutomu Itoh
; I guess maybe I miss something to reproduce it?
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> liubo
>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Tsutomu
>>>>>
>>>>> =========================
>
emand
>>>> acpi_cpufr
>>>> eq freq_table mperf ipv6 btrfs zlib_deflate crc32c libcrc32c ext3 jbd
>>>> dm_mirror
>>>> dm_region_hash dm_log dm_mod kvm uinput ppdev parport_pc parport sg pcspkr
>>>> i2c_i
>>>> 801 i2c_core iTCO_wdt
iput+0xe2/0x1a0
>>> [] btrfs_remove_block_group+0x141/0x3c0 [btrfs]
>>> [] btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x54a/0x670 [btrfs]
>>> [] ? read_extent_buffer+0xd8/0x1d0 [btrfs]
>>> [] ? btrfs_previous_item+0xb1/0x150 [btrfs]
>>> [] btrfs_balance+0x21a/0x2b0 [bt
> [] ? btrfs_previous_item+0xb1/0x150 [btrfs]
>> [] btrfs_balance+0x21a/0x2b0 [btrfs]
>> [] ? path_openat+0x101/0x3d0
>> [] btrfs_ioctl+0x51c/0xc40 [btrfs]
>> [] ? handle_mm_fault+0x148/0x270
>> [] ? do_page_fault+0x1d8/0x4b0
>> [] do_vfs_ioctl+0x9a/
th+0x16/0x1b
> ---[ end trace e5c5cb2e98a3cd1a ]---
> btrfs: relocating block group 20971520 flags 18
> btrfs: relocating block group 34925969408 flags 18
> btrfs: found 1 extents
> [ cut here ]
> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!
> invalid opcode: [
sys_ioctl+0xa1/0xb0
[] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
---[ end trace e5c5cb2e98a3cd1a ]---
btrfs: relocating block group 20971520 flags 18
btrfs: relocating block group 34925969408 flags 18
btrfs: found 1 extents
[ cut here ]------------
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:6164!
invalid opcode
19 matches
Mail list logo
