ov 07 19:24:43 xenon kernel: [ cut here ]
nov 07 19:24:43 xenon kernel: kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1561!
nov 07 19:24:43 xenon kernel: invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
nov 07 19:24:43 xenon kernel: Modules linked in: xfs libcrc32c rfcomm
fuse xt_CHE
ote:
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153891
>>
>> [ 879.935385] [ cut here ]----
>> [ 879.935400] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1579!
>> [ 879.935414] invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP
>> [ 879.935425] Modules link
On Wed, Aug 24, 2016 at 09:27:16PM +0200, Sverd Johnsen wrote:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153891
>
> [ 879.935385] [ cut here ]
> [ 879.935400] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1579!
> [ 879.935414] invalid opcode: [
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=153891
[ 879.935385] [ cut here ]
[ 879.935400] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1579!
[ 879.935414] invalid opcode: [#1] PREEMPT SMP
[ 879.935425] Modules linked in: veth binfmt_misc nft_reject_inet
nf_reject_ipv4
Am Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:21:49 +0100
schrieb Jacek Luczak :
> > 2) A *regression* in 3.3.0-rc6-00197-g9f8050c
> > - completely unusable as reports ENOSPC
> > - to reproduce, mount volume and issue:
> > # CNT=1 ; while [ $CNT -lt 1 ] ; do rm -f /btrfs/dd ; ! touch
> > /btrfs/dd && echo "$CNT" &&
2012/3/10 Jacek Luczak :
> 2012/3/9 David Sterba :
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:08:12PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>>> For this one I've created also a report [1].
>>> >
>>> > so there is probably other problem in reservations and it just blew up
>>> > during
>>> > the unlink call.
>>>
>>> Could
2012/3/10 Jacek Luczak :
> 2) A *regression* in 3.3.0-rc6-00197-g9f8050c
> - completely unusable as reports ENOSPC
> - to reproduce, mount volume and issue:
> # CNT=1 ; while [ $CNT -lt 1 ] ; do rm -f /btrfs/dd ; ! touch
> /btrfs/dd && echo "$CNT" && break ; CNT=$(( $CNT + 1 )) ; done
> On my
2012/3/9 David Sterba :
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:08:12PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>> For this one I've created also a report [1].
>> >
>> > so there is probably other problem in reservations and it just blew up
>> > during
>> > the unlink call.
>>
>> Could be as this came up after a longer t
2012/3/9 Jacek Luczak :
> 2012/3/9 David Sterba :
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:33:24PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>>> > Those two issues go inline. After a longer while of WARN_ON the BUG_ON
>>> > hit again.
>>>
>>> One more observation. Host is running builds from CI system. After
>>> BUG_ON pop
2012/3/9 David Sterba :
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:33:24PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>> > Those two issues go inline. After a longer while of WARN_ON the BUG_ON
>> > hit again.
>>
>> One more observation. Host is running builds from CI system. After
>> BUG_ON pop up all builds take 50% more time
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 03:33:24PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
> > Those two issues go inline. After a longer while of WARN_ON the BUG_ON
> > hit again.
>
> One more observation. Host is running builds from CI system. After
> BUG_ON pop up all builds take 50% more time to complete.
After a BUG_ON
2012/3/9 Jacek Luczak :
> 2012/3/9 David Sterba :
>> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:08:12PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>>> For this one I've created also a report [1].
>>> >
>>> > so there is probably other problem in reservations and it just blew up
>>> > during
>>> > the unlink call.
>>>
>>> Could b
2012/3/9 David Sterba :
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:08:12PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>> For this one I've created also a report [1].
>> >
>> > so there is probably other problem in reservations and it just blew up
>> > during
>> > the unlink call.
>>
>> Could be as this came up after a longer t
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 12:08:12PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
> For this one I've created also a report [1].
> >
> > so there is probably other problem in reservations and it just blew up
> > during
> > the unlink call.
>
> Could be as this came up after a longer time of throwing above WARN_ON.
>
2012/3/9 David Sterba :
> On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:31:25AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
>> > There were quite many things happening in the system at that time.
>> > Can't really tell what could trigger this.
>> >
>> > Complete logs: http://91.234.146.107/~difrost/logs/tampere_log.gz
>> >
>> So are these
On Fri, Mar 09, 2012 at 09:31:25AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > There were quite many things happening in the system at that time.
> > Can't really tell what could trigger this.
> >
> > Complete logs: http://91.234.146.107/~difrost/logs/tampere_log.gz
> >
> So are these warnings based on the latest u
2012/3/9 Chris Samuel :
> On 09/03/12 12:31, Liu Bo wrote:
>
>> So are these warnings based on the latest upstream of btrfs?
>
> Looks like it was 3.2.7, his oops said:
>
> Pid: 1488, comm: mips-wrs-linux- Tainted: G W 3.2.7 #2 HP
Yep, that's 3.2.7. Now I can't upgrade to latest upstream
On 09/03/12 12:31, Liu Bo wrote:
> So are these warnings based on the latest upstream of btrfs?
Looks like it was 3.2.7, his oops said:
Pid: 1488, comm: mips-wrs-linux- Tainted: GW3.2.7 #2 HP
--
Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC
--
To unsubscribe from thi
On 03/09/2012 03:35 AM, Jacek Luczak wrote:
> 2012/3/8 David Sterba :
>> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:10:45PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>>> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1466!
>> 1461 ret = btrfs_delayed_item_reserve_metadata(trans, root, item);
&g
2012/3/8 David Sterba :
> On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:10:45PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
>> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1466!
>
> 1461 ret = btrfs_delayed_item_reserve_metadata(trans, root, item);
> 1462 /*
> 1463 * we have reserved enough
On Thu, Mar 08, 2012 at 01:10:45PM +0100, Jacek Luczak wrote:
> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1466!
1461 ret = btrfs_delayed_item_reserve_metadata(trans, root, item);
1462 /*
1463 * we have reserved enough space when we start a new transaction,
1464 *
Hi,
this shown up today. I had to do a hard reboot as graceful hanged on sync().
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1466!
invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
CPU 10
Modules linked in: btrfs zlib_deflate lzo_compress ipmi_devintf
autofs4 be2iscsi
Marcus Sorensen wrote:
> I too have run into this just today, file system is nearly fresh:
>
>
> [ cut here ]--------
> kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1693!
I just sent out a patch to fix it, see:
[PATCH] Btrfs: reverse enough space for file clone
--
I too have run into this just today, file system is nearly fresh:
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1693!
invalid opcode: [#9] SMP
CPU 21
Modules linked in: btrfs zlib_deflate ip6t_REJECT nf_conntrack_ipv6
nf_defrag_ipv6 xt_state nf_conntrack
Filesystem is almost empty:
/dev/mapper/vg_md1-btrfs
155G 2,1G 152G 2% /mnt/btrfs
File system is made using command
mkfs.btrfs /dev/mapper/vg_md1-btrfs
If you can't reproduce this I can try to compile kernel
using debug stuff
-Markus
2011/7/26 cwillu :
> On Tue, J
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 1:51 AM, Markus Suvanto
wrote:
> This is what I get if I use command:
> bcp file file_copy
> I can reproduce this every time when using bcp command.
>
> Filesystem is under lvm:
> /dev/mapper/vg_md1-btrfs on /mnt/btrfs type btrfs (rw,noatime,subvol=.)
>
> This filesystem i
-g4f89b6e-dirty
Ok, I don't have any kernel debug stuff there but maybe you can
reproduce this
-Markus
[ cut here ]
kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1693!
invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
CPU 2
Modules linked in: af_packet libafs(P) snd_seq_dummy snd_se
Jim Schutt wrote:
Hi Miao,
Miao Xie wrote:
Hi, Jim
Could you test the attached patch for me? I have done some quick
tests, it worked well. But I'm not sure if it can fix
the bug you reported or not, so I need your help!
So far I haven't been able to reproduce with your patch
applied. I'd
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 02:08:54 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 06:12:10PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
>> >From 457f39393b2e3d475fbba029b90b6a4e17b94d43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Miao Xie
>> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:21:51 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix inconsonant inode
On Mon, Jun 20, 2011 at 06:12:10PM +0800, Miao Xie wrote:
> >From 457f39393b2e3d475fbba029b90b6a4e17b94d43 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Miao Xie
> Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:21:51 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] btrfs: fix inconsonant inode information
>
> When iputting the inode, We may leave the de
know what I can do to help resolve this.
[ 5447.554187] err add delayed dir index item(name: pglog_0.965_0) into the
insertion tree of the delayed node(root id: 262, inode id: 258, errno: -17)
[ 5447.569766] [ cut here ]--------
[ 5447.575361] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1301!
[ 54
69766] --------[ cut here ]----
> [ 5447.575361] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1301!
> [ 5447.580672] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
> [ 5447.584806] CPU 2
> [ 5447.586646] Modules linked in: loop btrfs zlib_deflate lzo_compress
> ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat nf_
nsertion tree of the delayed node(root id: 262, inode id: 258, errno: -17)
> [ 5447.569766] --------[ cut here ]----
> [ 5447.575361] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1301!
> [ 5447.580672] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
> [ 5447.584806] CPU 2
> [ 5447.586646] Modul
--[ cut here ]
[ 5447.575361] kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1301!
[ 5447.580672] invalid opcode: [#1] SMP
[ 5447.584806] CPU 2
[ 5447.586646] Modules linked in: loop btrfs zlib_deflate lzo_compress
ipt_MASQUERADE iptable_nat nf_nat nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 xt
34 matches
Mail list logo
