Hi Dmitry,
On Thu, 03 Jul 2014 18:58:48 +0400
Dmitry Monakhov <dmonakhov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 16:15:51 +0200, David Jander <david@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ted,
> >
> > On Thu, 3 Jul 2014 09:43:38 -0400
> > "Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, Jul 01, 2014 at 10:55:11AM +0200, Matteo Croce wrote:
> > > > 2014-07-01 10:42 GMT+02:00 Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > > >
> > > > I have a Samsung SSD 840 PRO
> > >
> > > Matteo,
> > >
> > > For you, you said you were seeing these problems on 3.15. Was it
> > > *not* happening for you when you used an older kernel? If so, that
> > > would help us try to provide the basis of trying to do a bisection
> > > search.
> >
> > I also tested with 3.15, and there too I see the same problem.
> >
> > > Using the kvm-xfstests infrastructure, I've been trying to reproduce
> > > the problem as follows:
> > >
> > > ./kvm-xfstests --no-log -c 4k generic/075 ; e2fsck -p /dev/heap/test-4k ; e2fsck -f /dev/heap/test-4k
> > >
> > > xfstests geneeric/075 runs fsx which does a fair amount of block
> > > allocation deallocations, and then after the test finishes, it first
> > > replays the journal (e2fsck -p) and then forces a fsck run on the
> > > test disk that I use for the run.
> > >
> > > After I launch this, in a separate window, I do this:
> > >
> > > sleep 60 ; killall qemu-system-x86_64
> > >
> > > This kills the qemu process midway through the fsx test, and then I
> > > see if I can find a problem. I haven't had a chance to automate this
> > > yet, and it is my intention to try to set this up where I can run this
> > > on a ramdisk or a SSD, so I can more closely approximate what people
> > > are reporting on flash-based media.
> > >
> > > So far, I haven't been able to reproduce the problem. If after doing
> > > a large number of times, it can't be reproduced (especially if it
> > > can't be reproduced on an SSD), then it would lead us to believe that
> > > one of two things is the cause. (a) The CACHE FLUSH command isn't
> > > properly getting sent to the device in some cases, or (b) there really
> > > is a hardware problem with the flash device in question.
> >
> > Could (a) be caused by a bug in the mmc subsystem or in the MMC peripheral
> > driver? Can you explain why I don't see any problems with EXT3?
> >
> > I can't discard the possibility of (b) because I cannot prove it, but I will
> > try to see if I can do the same test on a SSD which I happen to have on that
> > platform. That should be able to rule out problems with the eMMC chip and
> > -driver, right?
> >
> > Do you know a way to investigate (a) (CACHE FLUSH not being sent correctly)?
> >
> > I left the system running (it started from a dirty EXT4 partition), and I am
> > seen the following error pop up after a few minutes. The system is not doing
> > much (some syslog activity maybe, but not much more):
> >
> > [ 303.072983] EXT4-fs (mmcblk1p2): error count: 4
> > [ 303.077558] EXT4-fs (mmcblk1p2): initial error at 1404216838: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:756
> > [ 303.085690] EXT4-fs (mmcblk1p2): last error at 1404388969: ext4_mb_generate_buddy:757
> >
> > What does that mean?
> This means that it found previous error in internal ext4's log. Which is
> normal because your fs was corrupted before. It is reasonable to
> recreate filesystem from very beginning.
>
> In order to understand whenever it is regression in eMMC driver it is
> reasonable to run integrity test for a device itself. You can run
> any integrity test you like, For example just run a fio's job
> "fio disk-verify2.fio" (see attachment), IMPORTANT this script will
> destroy data on test partition. If it failed with errors like
> follows "verify: bad magic header XXX" than it is definitely a drivers issue.
I have been trying to run fio on my board with your configuration file, but I
am having problems, and since I am not familiar with fio at all, I can't
really figure out what's wrong. My eMMC device is only 916MiB in size, so I
edited the last part to be:
offset_increment=100M
size=100M
Is that ok?
I still get error messages complaining about blocksize though. Here is the
output I get (can't really make sense of it):
# ./fio ../disk-verify2.fio
Multiple writers may overwrite blocks that belong to other jobs. This can cause verification failures.
/dev/mmcblk1p2: (g=0): rw=randwrite, bs=4K-4K/4K-4K/4K-4K, ioengine=libaio, iodepth=32
...
fio-2.1.10-49-gf302
Starting 4 processes
fio: blocksize too large for data set
fio: blocksize too large for data set
fio: blocksize too large for data set
fio: io_u.c:1315: __get_io_u: Assertion `io_u->flags & IO_U_F_FREE' failed.ta 00m:00s]
fio: pid=7612, got signal=6
/dev/mmcblk1p2: (groupid=0, jobs=1): err= 0: pid=7612: Fri Jul 4 09:31:15 2014
lat (msec) : 4=0.19%, 10=0.19%, 20=0.19%, 50=0.85%, 100=1.23%
lat (msec) : 250=56.01%, 500=37.18%, 750=1.14%
cpu : usr=0.00%, sys=0.00%, ctx=0, majf=0, minf=0
IO depths : 1=0.1%, 2=0.2%, 4=0.4%, 8=0.8%, 16=1.5%, 32=97.1%, >=64=0.0%
submit : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
complete : 0=0.0%, 4=100.0%, 8=0.0%, 16=0.0%, 32=0.0%, 64=0.0%, >=64=0.0%
issued : total=r=33/w=1024/d=0, short=r=0/w=0/d=0
latency : target=0, window=0, percentile=100.00%, depth=32
Run status group 0 (all jobs):
Disk stats (read/write):
mmcblk1: ios=11/1025, merge=0/0, ticks=94/6671, in_queue=7121, util=96.12%
fio: file hash not empty on exit
This assertion bugs me. Is it due to the previous errors ("blocksize too large
for data set") or is is because my eMMC drive/kernel is seriously screwed?
Help please!
> If my theory is true and it is storage's driver issue than JBD complain
> simply because it do care about it's data (it does integrity checks).
> Can you also create btrfs on that partition and performs some io
> activity and run fsck after that. You likely will see similar corruption
Best regards,
--
David Jander
Protonic Holland.
--
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
