Re: filebench varmail + scrubber = btrfs_update_root bug

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, 16 Jul 2013 13:37:45 +0200, David Sterba wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:56:29AM -0400, George Amvrosiadis wrote:
>> I'm trying to run the varmail personality in filebench, on a 50GB btrfs
>> filesystem. I am also starting the scrubber at the same time. I have
>> applied the latest patches for 3.8.13 (hoping to fix log tree issues).
> 
> There's a bugreport that looks the same,
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=60051
> 
>> Every time, after the scrubber completes, however, I get the following:
>>
>> [ 2558.688026] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> [ 2558.688055] WARNING: at fs/btrfs/tree-log.c:3882
>> btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x41e/0x480 [btrfs]()
>> [ 2558.688061] Hardware name: ProLiant DL160 Gen8
>> [ 2558.688065] Modules linked in: btrfs zlib_deflate libcrc32c psmouse
>> sb_edac serio_raw edac_core hpilo ioatdma hpwdt acpi_power_meter
>> mac_hid lp parport igb dca ptp pps_core be2iscsi iscsi_boot_sysfs
>> mpt2sas libiscsi scsi_transport_sas scsi_transport_iscsi raid_class
>> be2net
>> [ 2558.688109] Pid: 13631, comm: filebench Tainted: G      D W    3.8.13 #9
>> [ 2558.688115] Call Trace:
>> [ 2558.688128]  [<ffffffff8105824f>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7f/0xc0
>> [ 2558.688137]  [<ffffffff810582aa>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
>> [ 2558.688161]  [<ffffffffa020fcce>] btrfs_log_inode_parent+0x41e/0x480 [btrfs]
>> [ 2558.688182]  [<ffffffffa020fd76>] btrfs_log_dentry_safe+0x46/0x70 [btrfs]
>> [ 2558.688206]  [<ffffffffa01e527c>] btrfs_sync_file+0x18c/0x230 [btrfs]
>> [ 2558.688214]  [<ffffffff811b642d>] do_fsync+0x5d/0x90
>> [ 2558.688222]  [<ffffffff8115a9c9>] ? vm_munmap+0x59/0x70
>> [ 2558.688230]  [<ffffffff811b6810>] sys_fsync+0x10/0x20
>> [ 2558.688239]  [<ffffffff8168a959>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> [ 2558.688245] ---[ end trace 1cf4adc709e16e0b ]---
>>
>> And that root key (18446744073709551610) looks very suspicious. Any ideas?
> 
> It translates to key type 250 which is BTRFS_DEV_REPLACE_KEY, plus the
> parent transid error this looks like broken/unfinished device replace.
> Have you used the 'btrfs device replace' recently?
> 

Where do you see the key type 250?

> item 0 key (18446744073709551606 80 6597246976)
Is (objectid = -10 = BTRFS_EXTENT_CSUM_OBJECTID, type = 0x80 =
BTRFS_EXTENT_CSUM_KEY)

> unable to update root key 18446744073709551610 132 5
Is (objectid = -6 = BTRFS_TREE_LOG_OBJECTID, type = 132 =
BTRFS_ROOT_ITEM_KEY, offset = 5)

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux