Chris Mason wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 13:43:48 -0400
Ric Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Chris Mason wrote:
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 01:52:47PM -0400, Ric Wheeler wrote:
I can reliably get btrfs to panic by running my fs_mark code on a
newly created file system with lots of threads on an 8-way box. If
this is too aggressive, let me know ;-)
Here is a summary of the panic:
BTW, exactly how are you running fs_mark? Mingming reminded me that
strictly speaking this patch shouldn't be required, so there might
be other related problems.
-chris
It still crashes, Mingming is clearly correct ;-)
Grin, I never should have doubted her.
So, the actual fix should be below. It looks like the problem is that I've got
a race in setting the pointer to a new transaction, which makes the
data=ordered code take a spin lock that hasn't yet been setup.
Before this patch my test box got into an infinite loop with fs_mark. Now it
seems to run to completion.
-chris
Thanks Chris - this patch works for me as well,
ric
diff -r 0b4ab489ffe1 transaction.c
--- a/transaction.c Tue May 27 10:55:43 2008 -0400
+++ b/transaction.c Sun Jun 08 22:23:50 2008 -0400
@@ -56,7 +56,6 @@ static noinline int join_transaction(str
total_trans++;
BUG_ON(!cur_trans);
root->fs_info->generation++;
- root->fs_info->running_transaction = cur_trans;
root->fs_info->last_alloc = 0;
root->fs_info->last_data_alloc = 0;
cur_trans->num_writers = 1;
@@ -74,6 +73,9 @@ static noinline int join_transaction(str
extent_io_tree_init(&cur_trans->dirty_pages,
root->fs_info->btree_inode->i_mapping,
GFP_NOFS);
+ spin_lock(&root->fs_info->new_trans_lock);
+ root->fs_info->running_transaction = cur_trans;
+ spin_unlock(&root->fs_info->new_trans_lock);
} else {
cur_trans->num_writers++;
cur_trans->num_joined++;
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
