https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218770
--- Comment #7 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Jaegeuk Kim from comment #6)
> Thank you for the report. It seems I need to reapply that patch indeed.
Does rc6 contain the reapplied patch?
--
You may reply to this email to
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218770
Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaeg...@kernel.org
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218770
--- Comment #5 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to Artem S. Tashkinov from comment #4)
> On 4/24/24 12:21 PM, Tor Vic wrote:
> >
> > I can confirm the constant fsck issue, and it was fixed in my case by
> > the following patch:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218770
Artem S. Tashkinov (a...@gmx.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Resolution|ANSWERED|CODE_FIX
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218770
Artem S. Tashkinov (a...@gmx.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218770
--- Comment #2 from Artem S. Tashkinov (a...@gmx.com) ---
*** Bug 218769 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
--
You may reply to this email to add a comment.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are watching the assignee of the
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218769
Artem S. Tashkinov (a...@gmx.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218770
--- Comment #1 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
Created attachment 306205
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=306205=edit
fsck
--
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=218770
Bug ID: 218770
Summary: fsck seems unable to solve corruption
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: high
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218769
Bug ID: 218769
Summary: fsck seems unable to solve corruption
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Severity: high
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218349
--- Comment #3 from Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) ---
(In reply to Kane Ch'in from comment #2)
> That works! Thank you for your efforts.
Thank you for the confirmation!
I found above link is expired, let me attach the lore one for who wants check
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218349
Kane Ch'in (qinfd2...@lzu.edu.cn) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218471
Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||c...@kernel.org
--- Comment
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218471
Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jaeg...@kernel.org
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218471
--- Comment #2 from Salvatore Bonaccorso (car...@debian.org) ---
regressions list report:
https://lore.kernel.org/regressions/zcu3vcrt9vopu...@eldamar.lan/T/#u
Debian downstream bugreport: https://bugs.debian.org/1063422
--
You may reply to
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218471
Artem S. Tashkinov (a...@gmx.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Kernel Version||6.1.76
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218471
--- Comment #1 from Dhya Pacifica (d...@picorealm.net) ---
The changelog for the Debian linux-image-6.1.0-18-amd64 kernel package lists:
- f2fs: clean up i_compress_flag and i_compress_level usage
- f2fs: convert to use bitmap API
-
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218471
Bug ID: 218471
Summary: F2FS fails to mount rw at boot with "invalid zstd
compress level: 6"
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218349
Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218349
Bug ID: 218349
Summary: f2fs partitions corrupted during power failures and
cannot be fixed with fsck.
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Hardware: AMD
OS:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=218096
Bug ID: 218096
Summary: first 4K all zeros when release_cblocks set,
reserve_cblocks restores access
Product: File System
Version: 2.5
Hardware: All
OS:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210795
Tomas Thiemel (thie...@centrum.cz) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=210797
Tomas Thiemel (thie...@centrum.cz) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #181 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
The fact that dirty segments don't go below 1 suggests that the bug is not
completely fixed even with this patch. This is unfortunate because the 5.15
kernel, which is not affected by
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #180 from kelak (ale...@gmx.net) ---
(In reply to Guido from comment #179)
> (In reply to kelak from comment #178)
> > >Jaegeuk has proposed a workaround solution as below, it aims to enable
> from
> > >6.6-rc1, could you please have
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #179 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
(In reply to kelak from comment #178)
> >Jaegeuk has proposed a workaround solution as below, it aims to enable from
> >6.6-rc1, could you please have a try with it?
> >
>
>
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #178 from kelak (ale...@gmx.net) ---
>Jaegeuk has proposed a workaround solution as below, it aims to enable from
>6.6-rc1, could you please have a try with it?
>
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #177 from Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) ---
(In reply to kelak from comment #175)
> Still happens on my system with 6.4.x kernels after about 4 days (today the
> second time in the last two weeks):
Jaegeuk has proposed a workaround
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
--- Comment #176 from Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) ---
After several months the bug occurred again with kernel 6.5 rc4.
After rebooting with REISUB, I tried forcing GC with the usual script and it
gave me no problems.
--
You may reply to
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
kelak (ale...@gmx.net) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ale...@gmx.net
--- Comment #175
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://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
Daan Geurts-Doorenbos (daangeu...@pm.me) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
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
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 #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://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
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://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216050
Matias (lp61...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||lp61...@gmail.com
---
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
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
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
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 #161 from Jaegeuk Kim (jaeg...@kernel.org) ---
>From Linus tree, could you please try this patch which was merged in 6.4-rc1?
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.
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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 #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
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
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=edit
build error
Ok, I found how to in documentation, but I receive errors during build (see
attache
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
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
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
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 #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
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
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
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://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
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
Chao Yu (c...@kernel.org) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|
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
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
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
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
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.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=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
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 #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 #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
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=215902
Monthero Ronald (rhmcrui...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC|
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
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.
--
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 #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
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 #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 #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.
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
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
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:
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 #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
Guido (guido.iod...@gmail.com) changed:
What|Removed |Added
Severity|normal |high
--- Comment #124
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
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 #122 from Yuriy Garin (yuriy.ga...@gmail.com) ---
Created attachment 303441
--> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=303441=edit
debug patch log - page, folio and ref count - #2
Today is a lucky day. After two weeks of
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
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
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=edit
debug patch log - page, folio and ref count
As you see, folio pointer is valid.
And,
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=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 #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
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
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
1 - 100 of 675 matches
Mail list logo
