On Thursday 05 March 2009 21:05:16 Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 05-03-09 13:55:43, Nick Piggin wrote: > > On Thursday 05 March 2009 04:50:31 Jan Kara wrote: > > > On Wed 04-03-09 16:55:35, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > On Wed 04-03-09 15:51:09, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > > first, I'd like to point out that this has happened under UML so > > > > > it can be just some obscure bug in that architecture but I belive > > > > > it's worth debugging anyway. Now to the problem: > > > > > This has happened with today Linus's git snapshot. The filesystem > > > > > is ext3 with *1KB* blocksize. I booted UML with 64MB of memory and > > > > > run (these are test's from Andrew Morton's torture tests): > > > > > fsx-linux -l 8000000 /mnt/testfile > > > > > bash-shared-mapping -t 8 /mnt/bashfile 50000000 > > > > > (the second test just makes the UML under memory pressure and > > > > > stresses the filesystem, otherwise it does not interact with > > > > > fsx-linux in any way). After some time (like an hour) fsx-linux > > > > > reported the file is corrupted. I tried again and it happened again > > > > > so probably some debugging should be possible. > > > > > Both times it seems we've simply completely lost a write which > > > > > happened through mmap (2 pages in the first case, 3 pages in the > > > > > second case). Also I've checked and in the first case no blocks are > > > > > allocated for the offsets where the data should be so most probably > > > > > we've lost the write before block_write_full_page() called > > > > > get_block(). I'll debug this further but I wanted let people know > > > > > there's some problem and maybe somebody has some bright idea :). > > > > > I'm attaching the log from fsx if someone is interested. > > > > > > > > Testing a bit more, I managed to reproduce the problem on ext2 and > > > > what's more strange, now the lost page was written via ordinary > > > > write() (fsxlog attached). So I believe this is more likely to be UML > > > > specific... > > > > > > And to add even more information, this also happens on ext2 with 4KB > > > blocksize (although much more rarely it seems). Again the data was > > > written by an extending write() but the block for it was not even > > > allocated... > > > > What block device driver are you using? > > UML was just using image file to back the filesystem I was testing on. > But I don't think that plays a big role because the blocks were not even > allocated in the fs-image so we must have lost them quite early. So you're using ubd driver? OK, I just have a report of a problem with brd driver... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
