On 10/12/2016 10:40 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:47:17AM -0400, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 11, 2016 at 11:54:09AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/11/2016 10:45 AM, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > This is from Linus' current tree, with Al's iovec fixups on top.
> > >
> > > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 3673 at lib/list_debug.c:33 __list_add+0x89/0xb0
> > > list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffffe8ffff806648), but
was ffffc9000067fcd8. (prev=ffff880503878b80).
> > > CPU: 1 PID: 3673 Comm: trinity-c0 Not tainted 4.8.0-think+ #13
> > > ffffc90000d87458 ffffffff8d32007c ffffc90000d874a8 0000000000000000
> > > ffffc90000d87498 ffffffff8d07a6c1 0000002100000246 ffff88050388e880
>
> I hit this again overnight, it's the same trace, the only difference
> being slightly different addresses in the list pointers:
>
> [42572.777196] list_add corruption. prev->next should be next
(ffffe8ffff806648), but was ffffc90000647cd8. (prev=ffff880503a0ba00).
>
> I'm actually a little surprised that ->next was the same across two
> reboots on two different kernel builds. That might be a sign this is
> more repeatable than I'd thought, even if it does take hours of runtime
> right now to trigger it. I'll try and narrow the scope of what trinity
> is doing to see if I can make it happen faster.
.. and of course the first thing that happens is a completely different
btrfs trace..
WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 21706 at fs/btrfs/transaction.c:489
start_transaction+0x40a/0x440 [btrfs]
CPU: 1 PID: 21706 Comm: trinity-c16 Not tainted 4.8.0-think+ #14
ffffc900019076a8 ffffffffb731ff3c 0000000000000000 0000000000000000
ffffc900019076e8 ffffffffb707a6c1 000001e9f5806ce0 ffff8804f74c4d98
0000000000000801 ffff880501cfa2a8 000000000000008a 000000000000008a
This isn't even IO. Uuughhhh. We're going to need a fast enough test
that we can bisect.
-chris
