On 5/6/20 6:20 PM, Edwin Török wrote:
>> (Obviously, a full metadump would be useful for confirming the shape
>> of
>> the refcount btree, but...first things first let's look at the
>> filefrag
>> output.)
> I'll try to gather one, and find a place to store/share it.
>
> Best regards,
> --Edwin
M
On Wed, 2020-05-06 at 15:47 -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Wed, May 06, 2020 at 12:07:12AM +0100, Edwin Török wrote:
> >
> > On 5 May 2020 01:58:11 BST, "Darrick J. Wong" <
> > darrick.w...@oracle.com> wrote:
> > > On Mon, May 04, 2020 at 11:54:05PM +0100, Edwin Török wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 20
On 06/26/2016 02:16 PM, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 02.06.2016 15:29, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>>> Hmmm, Ok. I've been running the lockperf test and kernel builds all
>>> day on a filesystem that is identical in shape and size to yours
>>> (i.e. xfs_info output is the same) but I haven't reproduced i
On 02.06.2016 15:29, Daniel Wagner wrote:
>> Hmmm, Ok. I've been running the lockperf test and kernel builds all
>> day on a filesystem that is identical in shape and size to yours
>> (i.e. xfs_info output is the same) but I haven't reproduced it yet.
> I don't know if that is important: I run the
[ 1359.195272] [] do_syscall_64+0x62/0x110
[ 1359.200743] [] entry_SYSCALL64_slow_path+0x25/0x25
[ 1359.207178] ---[ end trace 0d397afdaff9f340 ]---
[ 1359.211830] XFS (dm-0): Internal error xfs_trans_cancel at line 984 of file
fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c. Caller xfs_remove+0x1d1/0x350 [xfs]
[ 1359.2237
> Hmmm, Ok. I've been running the lockperf test and kernel builds all
> day on a filesystem that is identical in shape and size to yours
> (i.e. xfs_info output is the same) but I haven't reproduced it yet.
I don't know if that is important: I run the lockperf test and after
they have finished I d
On Thu, Jun 02, 2016 at 07:23:24AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> > posix03 and posix04 just emit error messages:
> >
> > posix04 -n 40 -l 100
> > posix04: invalid option -- 'l'
> > posix04: Usage: posix04 [-i iterations] [-n nr_children] [-s]
> > .
>
> I screwed that this up. I have patched
> posix03 and posix04 just emit error messages:
>
> posix04 -n 40 -l 100
> posix04: invalid option -- 'l'
> posix04: Usage: posix04 [-i iterations] [-n nr_children] [-s]
> .
I screwed that this up. I have patched my version of lockperf to make
all test using the same options names. Though fo
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 04:13:10PM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> >> Anything in the log before this?
> >
> > Just the usual stuff, as I remember. Sorry, I haven't copied the whole log.
>
> Just triggered it again. My steps for it are:
>
> - run all lockperf test
>
> git://git.samba.org/jlayto
> via my test script:
Looks like my email client did not agree with my formatting of the script.
https://www.monom.org/data/lglock/run-tests.sh
>> Anything in the log before this?
>
> Just the usual stuff, as I remember. Sorry, I haven't copied the whole log.
Just triggered it again. My steps for it are:
- run all lockperf test
git://git.samba.org/jlayton/lockperf.git
via my test script:
#!/bin/sh
the crash.
>>
>>
>> [Jun 1 07:41] XFS (sde1): Internal error xfs_trans_cancel at line 984 of
>> file fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c. Caller xfs_rename+0x453/0x960 [xfs]
>
> Anything in the log before this?
Just the usual stuff, as I remember. Sorry, I haven't copied the
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 07:52:31AM +0200, Daniel Wagner wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I got the error message below while compiling a kernel
> on that system. I can't really say if I did something
> which made the file system unhappy before the crash.
>
>
> [Jun 1 07:4
Hi,
I got the error message below while compiling a kernel
on that system. I can't really say if I did something
which made the file system unhappy before the crash.
[Jun 1 07:41] XFS (sde1): Internal error xfs_trans_cancel at line 984 of file
fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c. Caller xfs_rename+
On 30/11/06, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 10:17:25AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 29/11/06, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >> Filesystem "dm-1&qu
On Wed, Nov 29, 2006 at 10:17:25AM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> On 29/11/06, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> >> Filesystem "dm-1": XFS internal error xfs_trans_cancel at line 1138 of
>
On 29/11/06, David Chinner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of my NFS servers just gave me a nasty surprise that I think it is
> relevant to tell you about:
Thanks, Jesper.
> Filesystem "
On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 04:49:00PM +0100, Jesper Juhl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> One of my NFS servers just gave me a nasty surprise that I think it is
> relevant to tell you about:
Thanks, Jesper.
> Filesystem "dm-1": XFS internal error xfs_trans_cancel at line 1138 of
> file
Hi,
One of my NFS servers just gave me a nasty surprise that I think it is
relevant to tell you about:
Filesystem "dm-1": XFS internal error xfs_trans_cancel at line 1138 of
file fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c. Caller 0x8034b47e
Call Trace:
[] show_trace+0xb2/0x380
[] dump_stack
19 matches
Mail list logo
