https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #93 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
It's running on 6.0.9-arch1-1:
$ uname -a
Linux ... 6.0.9-arch1-1 #2 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:14:08 +
x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
You may reply to this email to add a comme
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #94 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Yuriy Garin from comment #93)
> It's running on 6.0.9-arch1-1:
>
> $ uname -a
> Linux ... 6.0.9-arch1-1 #2 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed, 23 Nov 2022 05:14:08
> + x86_64 GNU/
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #95 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
May be it worth to inject printk "upstream", to see where this condition
page->mapping != mapping happens at first place?
Any ideas?
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #96 from bogdan.nico...@gmail.com ---
Well there's also a possibility that the mapping of the inode changes since it
was initialized in the beginning:
struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
How about printing all three: pag
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #97 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to bogdan.nicolae from comment #96)
> Well there's also a possibility that the mapping of the inode changes since
> it was initialized in the beginning:
> struct address_space
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #98 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
It would be funny, if actually inode->i_mapping was correctly fixed already,
and we spin for nothing.
:)
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #99 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Well, I tried to foce f2fs_gc on my partitions (with unpatched 6.0.11 kernel)
It seems that the problem of 100% cpu occupation arises only on nvme0n1p3 (my
root). The dirty sectors remains 1
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #100 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
And I cannot stop f2fs_gc with
[manjaro tmp]# echo 500 > /sys/fs/f2fs/nvme0n1p3/gc_urgent_sleep_time
[manjaro tmp]# echo 0 > /sys/fs/f2fs/nvme0n1p3/gc_urgent
--
You may reply to this ema
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #101 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Very interesting: I run the script with kernel 5.15.81 and it works well on my
root partition
sudo bash ./f2fs-gc.sh
[sudo] password di guido:
Performing GC on /sys/fs/f2fs/nvme0n1p3/
184
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #102 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
interesting enough, after the script run on the 5.15 kernel had successfully
reduced the dirty segments, I started the system with the 6.0.11 kernel and
relaunched the script (after waiting
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #103 from bogdan.nico...@gmail.com ---
Guido, so if I understand correctly, your theory is that something in the GC
strategy changed starting with 5.17, and normally this wouldn't be a problem
for a fresh partition but old partitions t
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #104 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to bogdan.nicolae from comment #103)
> Guido, so if I understand correctly, your theory is that something in the GC
> strategy changed starting with 5.17, and normally this wouldn'
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #105 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
I'm running next debug patch, but problem is not happening for 4 days at this
time.
Can anybody suggest a way to increase chances of this GC problem?
Sometimes it happens twice a day,
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #106 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Yuriy Garin from comment #105)
> I'm running next debug patch, but problem is not happening for 4 days at
> this time.
>
> Can anybody suggest a way to increase chances of this
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #107 from bogdan.nico...@gmail.com ---
I found that letting the machine go to sleep tends to trigger the bug more
often after it wakes up. You could try starting an I/O intensive task like
bonnie++, put the machine to sleep, then wake
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #108 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
Thanks!
How can you tell on what disk it happens? I have two nvme - one "plain" f2fs
root, another is f2fs on dm-crypt - that's home, where a lot of compilation
happens.
>From logs an
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #109 from Thomas (v10la...@myway.de) ---
For me it seems that applying the debug patch with f2fs_io_schedule_timeout and
running the f2fs-gc.sh script one time, then rebooting fixed the problem.
For me this was on the root partition w
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #110 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
I deactivate the f2fs-gc script for two days and... again the 100% cpu on
f2fs_gc process :-(
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #111 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Even worse, although I reactivated the script to force gc, I had the problem of
the cpu at 100 per cent again, even though I had done the 'cleaning' with the
5.15 kernel earlier.
So at the m
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #112 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
I feel that this may be a subtle page cache issue, which is really hard to find
the root cause. That being said, we might have two options: 1) bisecting the
kernel version, 2) trying 5.15
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #113 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #112)
Now I'm trying another solution: I used fstransform to format the partition and
upgrade the filesystem to f2fs 1.15. So now I'm testing kernel 6.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #114 from Thomas (v10la...@myway.de) ---
(In reply to Guido from comment #113)
Why not test the "f2fs_io_schedule_timeout" kernel patch in combination with
running the manual GC script one time (doesn't seem to matter if you run this
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #115 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Thomas from comment #114)
> (In reply to Guido from comment #113)
>
> Why not test the "f2fs_io_schedule_timeout" kernel patch in combination with
> running the manual GC scrip
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #116 from Thomas (v10la...@myway.de) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #112)
> this requires lots of effort between 5.15 vs. 5.18 tho, is it doable?
Really good question. I think it is doable but with a lot of time and passion
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #117 from Thomas (v10la...@myway.de) ---
(In reply to Guido from comment #115)
> it solved the problem of 100% cpu but still f2fs_gc remains stuck
You're right, this just happened for me, too. So no more 100% CPU but the
partitions I/
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #118 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
Created attachment 303439
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=303439&action=edit
debug patch - print page/folio/ref_count
This debug patch prints page, folio and folio
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #119 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
Created attachment 303440
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=303440&action=edit
debug patch log - page, folio and ref count
As you see, folio pointer is valid.
And, r
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #120 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
What's I'm saying, it is, as was pointed in #112:
"I feel that this may be a subtle page cache issue".
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail b
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #121 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Yuriy Garin from comment #119)
Forgot to add note:
$ uname -a
Linux ... 6.1.0-arch1-1 #1 SMP PREEMPT_DYNAMIC Wed, 14 Dec 2022 04:55:09 +
x86_64 GNU/Linux
--
You may
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #122 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
Created attachment 303441
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=303441&action=edit
debug patch log - page, folio and ref count - #2
Today is a lucky day. After two weeks
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216938
Bug ID: 216938
Summary: Huge stack dump on the first write to a newly created
file system
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Kernel Version: 6.2.0
Hardware: ARM
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #123 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Guido from comment #113)
> (In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #112)
>
> Now I'm trying another solution: I used fstransform to format the partition
> and upgrade the filesys
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |high
--- Comment #124 fr
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #125 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Can I ask to other reporters what distro they use?
I use manjaro but the problem occurs also with archlinux kernel.
Maybe it's related to CONFIG_F2FS_UNFAIR_RWSEM=y ?
--
You may reply to
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #126 from Matteo Croce (rootki...@yahoo.it) ---
The only way to find the issue is by doing a bisect.
It's a long operation, but in the time we spent commenting, we would have found
it already.
--
You may reply to this email to add a
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #127 from Thomas (v10la...@myway.de) ---
(In reply to Guido from comment #125)
> Can I ask to other reporters what distro they use?
Gentoo Linux
> Maybe it's related to CONFIG_F2FS_UNFAIR_RWSEM=y ?
Don't think so. My config:
CONFIG_
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #128 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Thomas from comment #127)
> Bisecting this is impossible: There are 16205 commits between 5.17 and 5.18.
Well, we need to check only the commits related to F2FS between the las
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #129 from Matteo Croce (rootki...@yahoo.it) ---
> Bisecting this is impossible: There are 16205 commits between 5.17 and 5.18.
This will take roughly 14 steps. Long but not impossible.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #130 from Thomas (v10la...@myway.de) ---
(In reply to Matteo Croce from comment #129)
> > Bisecting this is impossible: There are 16205 commits between 5.17 and
> 5.18.
>
> This will take roughly 14 steps. Long but not impossible.
Ex
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #131 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Re Comment #122,
By any chance, could you add a code to print "page->mapping->host->i_ino" if
page->mapping->host exists, and the status of PageUptodate(page)?
When GC tries to move the
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #132 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #131)
> Re Comment #122,
>
> By any chance, could you add a code to print "page->mapping->host->i_ino" if
> page->mapping->host exists, and the status
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #133 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
I tried to apply the patch on 6.2 but it failed because the repeat is missing
@1328.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #134 from bogdan.nico...@gmail.com ---
Well lines got shifted a bit. It's now #1336 instead of #1325.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
_
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #135 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to bogdan.nicolae from comment #134)
> Well lines got shifted a bit. It's now #1336 instead of #1325.
Yes, in meantime I corrected the patch, I'm building the kernel now.
--
You
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #136 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
OK, I am testing the new kernel. I tried the script to force the GC and noticed
that on the root partition it occupies 10%, while on the home partition the cpu
occupation was almost negligib
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215902
Monthero Ronald (rhmcrui...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||rhmcrui...@gmail.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #137 from bogdan.nico...@gmail.com ---
@Guido: any news? Did it work? I did't see any issues with this patch so far.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #138 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to bogdan.nicolae from comment #137)
> @Guido: any news? Did it work? I did't see any issues with this patch so far.
For me too, so far so good, but I think we still have to wait
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #139 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
I have been using the kernel with this patch for a month now and so far no
problems. Out of superstition (I am Italian!), I'm afraid to say that the bug
is fixed, but it seems plausible
--
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #140 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Cook, it seems no reason not to merge this patch. Thanks,
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
Bug ID: 217266
Summary: kernel panic on f2fs filesystem when
f2fs_commit_atomic_write
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Kernel Version: 6.2.8
Hardware: Intel
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
--- Comment #1 from michalechne...@googlemail.com ---
That looks identical to what I reported last week here:
https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-f2fs/mailman/message/37794257/
Am Mi., 29. März 2023 um 09:02 Uhr schrieb :
>
> https://bugzilla.kerne
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
--- Comment #2 from shilka (shilk...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to michalechner92 from comment #1)
> That looks identical to what I reported last week here:
>
> https://sourceforge.net/p/linux-f2fs/mailman/message/37794257/
>
>
Yep, it seems ver
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
--- Comment #3 from Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) ---
On 2023/3/30 10:48, bugzilla-dae...@kernel.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
>
> --- Comment #2 from shilka (shilk...@gmail.com) ---
> (In reply to michalechner92 fro
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
--- Comment #4 from michalechne...@googlemail.com ---
Am Do., 30. März 2023 um 05:31 Uhr schrieb Chao Yu :
>
> On 2023/3/30 10:48, bugzilla-dae...@kernel.org wrote:
> > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
> >
> > --- Comment #2 from
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #141 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Today I forced the gc on all partitions. No problem at all.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the bug.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaeg...@kernel.org
---
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
--- Comment #7 from michalechne...@googlemail.com ---
Am Mo., 3. Apr. 2023 um 16:08 Uhr schrieb :
>
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217266
>
> Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) changed:
>
>What|Removed |Ad
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #142 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
I've reviewed the refcount of the path and found one suspicious routine when
handling page->private.
By any chance, can we try this patch instead of the above workaround?
https://lore.ke
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #143 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #142)
> I've reviewed the refcount of the path and found one suspicious routine when
> handling page->private.
>
> By any chance, can we try this patch
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #144 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
You can apply it to any kernel version that you're able to build. Let me know
if there's a merge conflict.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail b
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #145 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
I'm not apre to patch 6.2.9, I receive error for hunk #2 in both data.c and
f2fs.c, I tried to change the patch entry point but it fails. Can you help me?
--
You may reply to this email to
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #146 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
By any chance, does this work? This is the backport to 6.1.
https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2fs-stable/commit/a0ba9030bd28c01b3e308499df5daec94414f4fb
--
You may reply to this email to add
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #147 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Ok, I prepared the patches in v6.2.
https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2fs-stable/commits/linux-6.2.y
Please apply *two* patches on top of the tree.
--
You may reply to this email to add a com
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #148 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Thank you, I'm building 6.2.10 with both patches and I will try it in next
days/weeks
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watchin
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #149 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
The build process fails but not on f2fs (it fails on a driver for some reason).
Is there a way to build only the patched f2fs module against the stock kernel?
--
You may reply to this emai
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #150 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Created attachment 304096
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=304096&action=edit
build error
Ok, I found how to in documentation, but I receive errors during build (see
atta
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #151 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Thanks. I found one mistake in the previous backport of first patch. Could you
please re-download them?
https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2fs-stable/commits/linux-6.2.y
--
You may reply to th
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #152 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Done. I built it against my current kernel (6.2.7), then rebuild the initramfs
and reboot the system.
Then I forced gc with a script and it works without problems. I will test this
kernel i
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
Ryotaro Ko (pikate...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||pikate...@gmail.com
--
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #154 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Could you please reapply and test three patches here again?
https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2fs-stable/commits/linux-6.2.y
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receivin
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #155 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #154)
> Could you please reapply and test three patches here again?
>
> https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2fs-stable/commits/linux-6.2.y
I see only two patc
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #156 from Ryotaro Ko (pikate...@gmail.com) ---
I fetched the archlinux kernel
(https://github.com/archlinux/linux/tree/v6.2.10-arch1) and rebased f2fs-stable
onto it, so if the pre-existing stable tree did not contain that (third) patc
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #157 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Sorry, I found some issues in the original patches.
Could you try two patches now on top of the tree?
https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2fs-stable/commits/linux-6.2.y
--
You may reply to this
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #158 from Ryotaro Ko (pikate...@gmail.com) ---
Thanks, I am now trying it out and it seems working fine with my root partition
mounted using background_gc=on.
https://github.com/pikatenor/linux/commits/archlinux-6.2.10-f2fs2
I will c
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #159 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
I too patched (this time using kernel 6.2.10). I also ran the script to force
gc. I will use this kernel in the coming weeks.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are rece
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #160 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
After several weeks, no problem. I also foced gc now with no problem.
Now I would like to swith to kernel 6.3, what patch I should use?
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
Y
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #161 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
>From Linus tree, could you please try this patch which was merged in 6.4-rc1?
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs.git/commit/?id=635a52da8605e5d300ec8c18fdba8d6
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #162 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
I'll try ASAP.
I tried to patch 6.3.1 with the patches for 6.2.x but fails saying they are
already in place. Seeing the code it seems so.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #163 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
To be clear: should I try the patch merged in 6.4-rc1 to 6.3.1 kernel?
If so, I prefer to try the kernel 6.4-rc1 instead, with that patche already in
place.
--
You may reply to this email
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #164 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Yup, 6.4-rc1 should have all patches, which is worth giving it a try.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #165 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Thank you, for now I'm trying linux-next-git 20230504.r0.g145e5cddfe8b-1 from
AUR, it should have the patch already applied.
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are recei
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
Matias (lp61...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lp61...@gmail.com
--- Commen
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #167 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Matias, you saw the issue with the f2fs updates in 6.4-rc1, right? If so, we
may need to consider [1] back..
[1]
https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2fs/commit/400dc2a4d7ec96a1fc4168652a0862e7eda
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #168 from Matias (lp61...@gmail.com) ---
Removed background_gc=sync and it happened again, i hope this message gets sent
so you could take a look, this is the journalctl log after it happens.
Kernel: 6.3.1 with f2fs updates of 6.4-rc
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #169 from Matias (lp61...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #167)
> Matias, you saw the issue with the f2fs updates in 6.4-rc1, right? If so, we
> may need to consider [1] back..
>
> [1]
> https://github.com/jaegeuk
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #170 from Ryotaro Ko (pikate...@gmail.com) ---
Since posting comment #158, I have been using the patched 6.2.10 kernel for a
while.
Initially it seemed stable, but in the last few days the problem has recurred -
again f2fs_gc occupies
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #171 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
All ok here with kernel 6.4 since May, 5th.
My mount options:
/dev/nvme0n1p3 on / type f2fs
(rw,noatime,lazytime,background_gc=on,gc_merge,nodiscard,no_heap,user_xattr,inline_xattr,acl,inl
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
Daan Geurts-Doorenbos (daangeu...@pm.me) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||daangeu...@pm.m
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
Uddipak (uddipak.b...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||uddipak.b...@gmail.com
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #174 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
Thank you for the reports.
I still suspect something happening in page cache tho, as a safeguard, let me
try to apply [1] to -next and -stable branches.
[1]
https://github.com/jaegeuk/f2
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204043
Bug ID: 204043
Summary: F2fs kernel BUG at fs/f2fs/data.c:317!
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Kernel Version: 5.1.3
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Tree: Mainline
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204043
Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=204043
--- Comment #2 from midwinter1...@gmail.com ---
(In reply to Chao Yu from comment #1)
> Could you help to add below diff to check debug info?
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> index bc5cea27b512..333285cb14c5 100644
> --- a/fs/f2
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203223
Jungyeon (jungy...@gatech.edu) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolut
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203231
Jungyeon (jungy...@gatech.edu) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolut
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203235
Jungyeon (jungy...@gatech.edu) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolut
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203233
Jungyeon (jungy...@gatech.edu) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolut
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=203345
Jungyeon (jungy...@gatech.edu) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolut
101 - 200 of 743 matches
Mail list logo
