On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 7:40 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Yes, indeed. Is this in the virtualized environment or on real > hardware at this point? And how many CPU's do you have configured in > your virtualized environment, and how memory memory? Is having a > certain number of CPU's critical for reproducing the problem? Is > constricting the amount of memory important? Originally, I observed the behavior on really real hardware. Since then, I have been able to reproduce it in VirtualBox and qemu-kvm, with openSUSE 11.3 and KUbuntu. All of the more recent tests have been with qemu-kvm. I have one CPU configured in the environment, 512MB of memory. I have not done any memory-constriction tests whatsoever. > It'll be a lot easier if I can reproduce it locally, which is why I'm > asking all of these questions. On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote: > One experiment --- can you try this with the file system mounted with > data=writeback, and see if the problem reproduces in that journalling > mode? That test is running now, first with encryption. I will report if it shows problems. If it does, I will wait until I have been able to see that a few times, and move to a no-encryption test. Typically, I have to run quite a few more iterations of that test before problems show up (if they will at all). > I want to rule out (if possible) journal_submit_inode_data_buffers() > racing with mpage_da_submit_io(). ÂI don't think that's the issue, but > I'd prefer to do the experiment to make sure. ÂSo if you can use a > kernel and system configuration which triggers the problem, and then > try changing the mount options to include data=writeback, and then > rerun the test, and let me know if the problem still reproduces, I'd > be really grateful. -- Jon -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
