Hi Jeff, On 06/29/2010 10:56 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote: > Tao Ma<[email protected]> writes: > >> Hi Jeff, >> >> On 06/27/2010 09:48 PM, Jeff Moyer wrote: >>> Tao Ma<[email protected]> writes: >>>> I am sorry to say that the patch make jbd2 locked up when I tested >>>> fs_mark using ocfs2. >>>> I have attached the log from my netconsole server. After I reverted >>>> the patch [3/3], the box works again. >>> >>> I can't reproduce this, unfortunately. Also, when building with the >>> .config you sent me, the disassembly doesn't line up with the stack >>> trace you posted. >>> >>> I'm not sure why yielding the queue would cause a deadlock. The only >>> explanation I can come up with is that I/O is not being issued. I'm >>> assuming that no other I/O will be completed to the file system in >>> question. Is that right? Could you send along the output from sysrq-t? >> yes, I just mounted it and begin the test, so there should be no >> outstanding I/O. So do you need me to setup another disk for test? >> I have attached the sysrq output in sysrq.log. please check. > > Well, if it doesn't take long to reproduce, then it might be helpful to > see a blktrace of the run. However, it might also just be worth waiting > for the next version of the patch to see if that fixes your issue. > >> btw, I also met with a NULL pointer deference in cfq_yield. I have >> attached the null.log also. This seems to be related to the previous >> deadlock and happens when I try to remount the same volume after >> reboot and ocfs2 try to do some recovery. > > Pid: 4130, comm: ocfs2_wq Not tainted 2.6.35-rc3+ #5 0MM599/OptiPlex 745 > RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff82161537>] > [<ffffffff82161537>] cfq_yield+0x5f/0x135 > RSP: 0018:ffff880123061c60 EFLAGS: 00010246 > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff88012c2b5ea8 RCX: ffff88012c3a30d0 > > ffffffff82161528: e8 69 eb ff ff callq > ffffffff82160096<cfq_cic_lookup> > ffffffff8216152d: 49 89 c6 mov %rax,%r14 > ffffffff82161530: 48 8b 85 00 06 00 00 mov 0x600(%rbp),%rax > ffffffff82161537: f0 48 ff 00 lock incq (%rax) > > I'm pretty sure that's a NULL pointer deref of the tsk->iocontext that > was passed into the yield function. I've since fixed that, so your > recovery code should be safe in the newest version (which I've not yet > posted). ok, so could you please cc me when the new patches are out? It would be easier for me to track it. Thanks.
Regards, Tao _______________________________________________ Ocfs2-devel mailing list [email protected] http://oss.oracle.com/mailman/listinfo/ocfs2-devel
