On Mon, Apr 11, 2016 at 09:05:47AM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
>
>
> Mark Fasheh wrote on 2016/04/08 12:18 -0700:
> >On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 03:10:35PM +0200, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> >>[cc: Mark and Qu]
> >>
> >>On 04/08/16 13:51, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> >>>On 04/08/16 13:14, Filipe Manana wrote:
> >>>>Using Chris' for-linus-4.6 branch, which is 4.5-rc6 + all 4.6 btrfs
> >>>>patches, it didn't reproduce here:
> >>>
> >>>Great, that's good to know (sort of :). Thanks also to Liu Bo.
> >>>
> >>>>Are you sure that you are not using some patches not in 4.6?
> >>
> >>We have a bingo!
> >>
> >>Reverting "qgroup: Fix qgroup accounting when creating snapshot"
> >>from last Wednesday immediately fixes the problem.
> >
> >Not surprising, I had some issues testing it out too. I'm pretty sure this
> >patch is corrupting memory, I just haven't found where yet though my
> >educated guess is that the transaction is being reused improperly.
> > --Mark
> >
> >--
> >Mark Fasheh
> >
> >
> Still digging the bug Mark has reported about the patch.
>
> Good to have another report, as I can't always reproduce the soft
> lockup from Mark.
>
> It seems that the WARN_ON will bring another clue to fix it.
>
> BTW, the memory corruption assumption seems to be quite helpful.
> I didn't consider in that way, but it seems to be the only reason
> causing dead spinlock while no other thread spinning and no lockdep
> warning.
It seems to be the call to commit_cowonly_roots() in your patch which sets
everything off. If I remove that call I can run all day without a crash.
Btw, I'm not convinced this fixes the qgroup numbers anyway - we are still
inconsistent even if I don't get a crash.
Have you tested that the actual numbers on your end are coming out ok?
--Mark
--
Mark Fasheh
--
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
