Re: Btrfs Bug Report

On 2019/7/9 上午8:49, Jungyeon Yoon wrote: > Hi btrfs developers, > > I'm Jungyeon Yoon. I have reported btrfs bug before. > Some of them have marked to fixed thanks to your efforts. > Additionally following bugs seems also fixed as I've checked. > If okay, I would like to close following bugs, to

Re: Btrfs Bug Report

On 2019/7/9 上午8:49, Jungyeon Yoon wrote: > Hi btrfs developers, > > I'm Jungyeon Yoon. I have reported btrfs bug before. > Some of them have marked to fixed thanks to your efforts. > Additionally following bugs seems also fixed as I've checked. > If okay, I would like to close following bugs, to

Re: BTRFS BUG at insert_inline_extent_backref+0xe3/0xf0 while rebalancing

Filipe Manana writes: > Try this (just sent a few minutes ago): > https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/7463161/ I've been using this patch for a week now, doing two rebalances a day (one per file system) - no problem so far. Thanks! Probably unrelated to this I did experience one reboot without an

Re: BTRFS BUG at insert_inline_extent_backref+0xe3/0xf0 while rebalancing

Hello, Thanks for the super-fast response :). I've installed the patch and shall be waiting. The effects should be visible within a week given daily rebalances of two filesystems. -- _ / __// /__ __ h

Re: BTRFS BUG at insert_inline_extent_backref+0xe3/0xf0 while rebalancing

Le 2015-10-22 10:53, Filipe Manana a écrit : On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Erkki Seppala wrote: Hello, Recently I added daily rebalancing to my cron.d (after finding myself in the no-space-situation), and not long after that, I found my PC had crashed over night. Having no sign in the log

Re: BTRFS BUG at insert_inline_extent_backref+0xe3/0xf0 while rebalancing

On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 6:32 AM, Erkki Seppala wrote: > Hello, > > Recently I added daily rebalancing to my cron.d (after finding myself in > the no-space-situation), and not long after that, I found my PC had > crashed over night. Having no sign in the logs anywhere (not even over > network even

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

On Sat, Feb 08, 2014 at 03:10:37PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote: > Hello, David, Fengguang, Chris. > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:13:06PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:13:59AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > > > On Fri, 7

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

Hi Filipe, > If you disable CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS, does it still crash? I tried disabling CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS in the reported 3 randconfigs and they all boot fine. Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

Hello, David, Fengguang, Chris. On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 01:13:06PM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:13:59AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > > > > [1.625020] BTRFS: selfte

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

> If you disable CONFIG_BTRFS_FS_RUN_SANITY_TESTS, does it still crash? Good idea! I've queued test jobs for that config. However sorry that I'll be offline for the next 2 days. So please expect some delays. Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrf

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: > On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:13:59AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > > > [1.625020] BTRFS: selftest: Running btrfs_split_item tests > > > [1.627004] BTRFS: selftest: Running find delalloc tests > > > [

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 3:10 PM, Chris Mason wrote: > On Fri 07 Feb 2014 07:10:38 AM EST, Fengguang Wu wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:13:59AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: >>> >>> On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: >>> [1.625020] BTRFS: selftest: Running btrfs_split_item tests

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

On Fri 07 Feb 2014 07:10:38 AM EST, Fengguang Wu wrote: On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:13:59AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: [1.625020] BTRFS: selftest: Running btrfs_split_item tests [1.627004] BTRFS: selftest: Running find delalloc tests [2.2891

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

On Fri, Feb 07, 2014 at 02:13:59AM -0800, David Rientjes wrote: > On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > > [1.625020] BTRFS: selftest: Running btrfs_split_item tests > > [1.627004] BTRFS: selftest: Running find delalloc tests > > [2.289182] tsc: Refined TSC clocksource calibration

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0000000000000038

On Fri, 7 Feb 2014, Fengguang Wu wrote: > [1.625020] BTRFS: selftest: Running btrfs_split_item tests > [1.627004] BTRFS: selftest: Running find delalloc tests > [2.289182] tsc: Refined TSC clocksource calibration: 2299.967 MHz > [ 292.084537] kthreadd invoked oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x30

Re: [btrfs] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null)

On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 12:31 PM, kernel test robot wrote: > Greetings, > > I got the below dmesg and the first bad commit is > > commit 87e612ae9ed2ea886bec151145f4b09b6ee97a10 > Author: Filipe David Borba Manana > AuthorDate: Tue Jan 7 11:47:46 2014 + > Commit: Josef Bacik > Commit

Re: btrfs bug reports?

On Mar 14, 2013, at 9:47 PM, Kyle wrote: > Hi, > > Is the linux-btrfs list interested in receiving bug reports relating to btrfs? > > If so, the following error occurred on a server of mine when copying a large > amount of data to a linear md-RAID formatted as btrfs. The data transfer > hung

Re: BTRFS Bug

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 09:25:02PM +0800, Ross Moore wrote: > Strange. Does that imply a problem with disks or disk cables physically? > Our just the data rather than the metadata? > It seems to be a kernel bug since another user also reported it sometime ago. > I've compiled the latest btrfs-to

Re: BTRFS Bug

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 05:54:35PM +0800, Ross Moore wrote: > Hi, > Any update on this before I wipe the disks and start again? Hi Ross, Sorry but I failed to reproduce it locally, although I've tried various disk operations like balance, dev add/del etc... So have you also tried the latest btrf

Re: BTRFS Bug

Ross Moore rossmoore.net> writes: [...] > >> It reports Total as smaller than Used. That just seems very > >> wrong to me. I'd also like to rescue my filesystem rather than kill it > >> and restore from backup if possible (since it's pretty big and > >> restoring would take a while / be error-pro

Re: BTRFS Bug

That's a big file - is that a dump of all the metadata? It's around 800MB. Two files provided, one with the errors/warnings, one the actual output. Time-limited link to download, can you let me know when you have downloaded a copy please? http://akiajwevbuo5lh2yiu7q.sharing.s3.amazonaws.com/btrfs-

Re: BTRFS Bug

On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:37:58PM +0800, Ross Moore wrote: > Hi, > > I have a BTRFS filesystem that seems to be suffering from a few > problems. I'll post the first one, which looks most bizarre to me. > > The filesystem is mounted at /media/Media. It consists of 4 devices in > RAID1 (both metad

Re: btrfs bug

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:20 PM, Thomas Weber wrote: > Hello Mitch, > > I have good news for you. I looked through all log files and found in the > everything.log the following: > > Regards, > Thomas > > > Jan 31 05:12:24 localhost kernel: [87276.968049] btrfs memmove bogus > src_offset 1870 move

Re: btrfs bug

Hello Mitch, I have good news for you. I looked through all log files and found in the everything.log the following: Regards, Thomas Jan 31 05:12:24 localhost kernel: [87276.968049] btrfs memmove bogus src_offset 1870 move len 687876531 len 4096 Jan 31 05:12:24 localhost kernel: [87276.9681

Re: btrfs bug

Hello Mitch, On 01/31/2012 10:37 PM, Mitch Harder wrote: On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Weber wrote: Hello, this morning my laptop with btrfs crashed. It is an ssd drive. It is a Linux aramis 3.2.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Jan 26 08:40:20 CET 2012 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CP

Re: btrfs bug

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:04 PM, Thomas Weber wrote: > Hello, > > this morning my laptop with btrfs crashed. It is an ssd drive. > > It is a Linux aramis 3.2.2-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Thu Jan 26 08:40:20 CET > 2012 x86_64 Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Duo CPU T7250 @ 2.00GHz GenuineIntel > GNU/Linux > > Regar

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 11:34:40AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Yeah this is a different problem that's fixed upstream, so reboot into > your other newer kernel with -o clear_cache. Thanks, Ok I'm back in business now, thanks... Now I'll try to understand why my pc sometimes hangs doing write IOs

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On 09/23/2011 11:31 AM, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:49:22AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Ok I have no idea how this could happen. Can you mount -o clear_cache >> and see if it's just the cache that's bad? Thanks, > > Did that and got this (it's a never ending st

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:49:22AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Ok I have no idea how this could happen. Can you mount -o clear_cache > and see if it's just the cache that's bad? Thanks, Did that and got this (it's a never ending story, this is from a F16 alpha boot cd hence stack trace could be

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On 09/23/2011 08:55 AM, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:32:13PM +0200, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: >> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:30:07PM +0200, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: >>> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:00:03PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: Oh wow sorry I se

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:32:13PM +0200, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:30:07PM +0200, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:00:03PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > > Oh wow sorry I sent you the completely wrong patch, I wish I had caught > >

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 09:30:07PM +0200, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:00:03PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > > Oh wow sorry I sent you the completely wrong patch, I wish I had caught > > your reply earlier. Can you run with this patch, which is the one I > > meant to

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:00:03PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Oh wow sorry I sent you the completely wrong patch, I wish I had caught > your reply earlier. Can you run with this patch, which is the one I > meant to give you :). Thanks, No worries, I've applied your patch (seems your thunderbird

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On 09/22/2011 02:22 PM, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:12:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> Well that is from the tree logging code, so give this a whirl. It's >> going to dump a lot of info so make sure you capture everything before >> the --- cut here --- line. Th

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:12:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Well that is from the tree logging code, so give this a whirl. It's > going to dump a lot of info so make sure you capture everything before > the --- cut here --- line. Thanks, Here's the output of this patch: http://mathieu.csetco

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 10:12:12AM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Well that is from the tree logging code, so give this a whirl. It's > going to dump a lot of info so make sure you capture everything before > the --- cut here --- line. Thanks, The patch doesn't apply cleanly to the latest git (sinc

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On 09/22/2011 02:05 AM, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > > On Sep 22, 2011 1:11 AM, "David Sterba" > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:18:29PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: >> > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c >> > index b128fa0..66ba0a7 100644 >> > ---

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:05:28PM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:13:44PM +0200, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:10:55AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > > please prefix printk messages with "btrfs: " > > > > Well my computer crashed before I

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:13:44PM +0200, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:10:55AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > > please prefix printk messages with "btrfs: " > > Well my computer crashed before I could reboot with the newly compiled > kernel. And now it bugs while it

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 01:10:55AM +0200, David Sterba wrote: > please prefix printk messages with "btrfs: " Well my computer crashed before I could reboot with the newly compiled kernel. And now it bugs while it tries to mount the kernel meaning my computer is fscked! :-) Bug at fs/btrfs/free-s

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:18:29PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c > index b128fa0..66ba0a7 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c > @@ -782,7 +782,12 @@ static noinline int cow_file_range(struct inode *inode, > struct extent_map_

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 04:18:29PM -0400, Josef Bacik wrote: > Yup, can you apply this patch and reproduce? It will print out some > debug info before the --- cut here --- line, which is what I need. Thanks, Compiling right now. That said, I had the same exact trace under rc6-00067-gf1fcd9f (ri

Re: Btrfs bug with g38867a2 and a question

On 09/21/2011 02:53 PM, Mathieu Chouquet-Stringer wrote: > Hello all, > > I've been using BTRFS for quite some time on this laptop and I just > recompiled the latest kernel from git (3.1.0-rc6-00247-g38867a2). After > a couple minutes, I hit this bug twice (this a hand written transcript, >

Re: btrfs bug in 2.6.37

On Di 1.Feb'11 at 16:25:11 -0600, cwillu wrote: > On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > > > > I am running 2.6.37 plus the revert of bf9dc102e284 (which is related to > > drm). > > > > My /home is on btrfs as well as a 1TB external USB hard-disk. > > > > I was compiling 2.6.38

Re: btrfs bug in 2.6.37

On Tue, Feb 1, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Carlos R. Mafra wrote: > > I am running 2.6.37 plus the revert of bf9dc102e284 (which is related to drm). > > My /home is on btrfs as well as a 1TB external USB hard-disk. > > I was compiling 2.6.38-rc3 from /home/mafra/linux2.6 using > the external hd as the destin

Re: btrfs BUG during Ceph cosd open() syscall

The btrfs_orphan_commit_root warning is also reproducable in our ceph environment. Regards Christian 2011/1/26 Matt Weil : > heavy writes as well > > Jan  5 16:56:46 linuscs101 kernel: [ 3666.496742] [ cut here > ] >> >>  Jan  5 16:56:46 linuscs101 kernel: [ 3666.496754] W

Re: btrfs BUG during Ceph cosd open() syscall

heavy writes as well Jan 5 16:56:46 linuscs101 kernel: [ 3666.496742] [ cut here ] Jan 5 16:56:46 linuscs101 kernel: [ 3666.496754] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/inode.c:2143 btrfs_orphan_commit_root+0xb0/0xc0() Jan 5 16:56:46 linuscs101 kernel: [ 3666.496756] Hardware name

Re: btrfs BUG during Ceph cosd open() syscall

Hi, On Wed, 2011-01-26 at 10:59 -0700, Jim Schutt wrote: > Hi, > > I got this kernel BUG on a server running multiple Ceph > cosd instances, during a heavy write load generated by > multiple Ceph clients. > > The server was running the current ceph unstable kernel > (a3f5274e535 in > git://git

Re: btrfs Bug?

7;t doing this that wasn't the cause. -chris > > > -- Original Message -- > From: Chris Mason > To: Justin > Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org > Subject: Re: btrfs Bug? > Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 07:18:44 -0400 > > On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:

Re: btrfs Bug?

As far as I know TRIM was enabled. I didn't forcibly disable it and I'm under the assumption that btrfs enables it when an SSD is detected. -- Original Message -- From: Chris Mason To: Justin Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: btrfs Bug? Date: Fri, 9 Apr

Re: btrfs Bug?

On Thu, Apr 08, 2010 at 06:46:40PM +, Justin wrote: > Unfortunately I did reformat. > Actually, I did a complete zero-out of the drive with dd, and then I ran > "badblocks -w" on the drive, which returned 0 bad blocks (not sure if this is > really a good test for SSD's as there's some amount

Re: btrfs Bug?

Unfortunately I did reformat. Actually, I did a complete zero-out of the drive with dd, and then I ran "badblocks -w" on the drive, which returned 0 bad blocks (not sure if this is really a good test for SSD's as there's some amount of internal voo-doo on the drive itself). For future reference

Re: btrfs Bug?

On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 05:08:12PM +, yoost...@netzero.com wrote: > Background: > Was checking E-mail and browsing the internet when suddenly Pidgin crashed > out. I thought that was pretty weird so I went to go re-start Pidgin when I > noticed the machine hang really hard for about 30 second

Re: btrfs Bug?

After reading around a bit on the btrfs wiki (the Getting_Started page and Gotchas page specifically) I found that I might be able to at least capture an image of the drive in case any devs needed to take a look at it; unfortunately btrfs-image failed with the same error. I deduced that a repair

Re: btrfs bug while defragmenting

On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:47:59PM -0800, Philip Love wrote: > I obtained a similar error doing a large write to an ext3 filesystem, so > there is another problem somewhere. Sorry for the inconvenience. > Phil-- I was going to ask about memory corruptions because I couldn't trigger this bug. But

Re: btrfs bug while defragmenting

I obtained a similar error doing a large write to an ext3 filesystem, so there is another problem somewhere. Sorry for the inconvenience. Phil-- 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

Re: btrfs bug while defragmenting

> I reproduced it again. The fs is idle apart from the defragment. > > mount -o nodatacow /dev/sdc1 backend > btrfsctl -d /mnt/backend/phil/i2 > This time I just mounted normally, please let me know what additional debug info you need. Thanks Phil mount /dev/sdc1 /mnt/backend btrfsctl -d /mnt

Re: btrfs bug while defragmenting

Also the 'file data blocks allocated' in the btrfsck looks wrong. sentryA:~ # btrfsck /dev/sdc1 found 95418703872 bytes used err is 0 total csum bytes: 92762192 total tree bytes: 430219264 total fs tree bytes: 186494976 btree space waste bytes: 72747390 file data blocks allocated: 193564269821952

Re: btrfs bug while defragmenting

> Well, I don't think that count is quite right. But I also don't see > anything in the ioctl that could cause it. How easily can you reproduce > this? > > I do see that the ioctl should be triple checking the page is part of > the mapping after doing a readpage on it, but it should only get dr

Re: btrfs bug while defragmenting

On Tue, Mar 09, 2010 at 10:45:13AM -0800, Philip Love wrote: > I had some 10gb files that I was using for random write testing (with cow > enabled). I remount the fs with nodatacow, then ran btrfsctl to defragement > the file. A BUG message appeared in the messages file. After a reboot btrfsck >

Re: btrfs BUG on creating huge sparse file

On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 07:40:22PM +0800, Chris Mason wrote: > On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 16:21 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 04:16:16PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:37:39AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > > [snip] > > > > PagePrivate is very common.

Re: btrfs BUG on creating huge sparse file

On Wed, 2009-04-29 at 16:21 +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > On Wed, Apr 29, 2009 at 04:16:16PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 09, 2009 at 10:37:39AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: > [snip] > > > PagePrivate is very common. try_to_releasepage failing on a clean page > > > without the writeback