On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 02:57:48PM -0400, Eric Whitney wrote: > * Theodore Ts'o <tytso@xxxxxxx>: > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2014 at 11:53:10AM -0400, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > > An update from today's ext4 concall. Eric Whitney can fairly reliably > > > reproduce this on his Panda board with 3.15, and definitely not on > > > 3.14. So at this point there seems to be at least some kind of 3.15 > > > regression going on here, regardless of whether it's in the eMMC > > > driver or the ext4 code. (It also means that the bug fix I found is > > > irrelevant for the purposes of working this issue, since that's a much > > > harder to hit, and that bug has been around long before 3.14.) > > > > > > The problem in terms of narrowing it down any further is that the > > > Pandaboard is running into RCU bugs which makes it hard to test the > > > early 3.15-rcX kernels..... > > > > In the hopes of making it easy to bisect, I've created a kernel branch > > which starts with 3.14, and then adds on all of the ext4-related > > commits since then. You can find it at: > > > > git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git test-mb_generate_buddy-failure > > > > https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/tytso/ext4.git/log/?h=test-mb_generate_buddy-failure > > > > Eric, can you see if you can repro the failure on your Panda Board? > > If you can, try doing a bisection search on these series: > > > > git bisect start > > git bisect good v3.14 > > git bisect bad test-mb_generate_buddy-failure > > > > Hopefully if it is caused by one of the commits in this series, we'll > > be able to pin point it this way. > > First, the good news (with luck): > > My testing currently suggests that the patch causing this regression was > pulled into 3.15-rc3 - > > 007649375f6af242d5b1df2c15996949714303ba > ext4: initialize multi-block allocator before checking block descriptors > > Bisection by selectively reverting ext4 commits in -rc3 identified this patch > while running on the Pandaboard. I'm still using generic/068 as my reproducer. > It occasionally yields a false negative, but it has passed 10 consecutive > trials on my revert/bisect kernel derived from 3.15-rc3. Given the frequency > of false negatives I've seen, I'm reasonably confident in that result. I'm > going to run another series with just that patch reverted on 3.16-rc3. > > Looking at the patch, the call to ext4_mb_init() was hoisted above the code > performing journal recovery in ext4_fill_super(). The regression occurs only > after journal recovery on the root filesystem. Thanks for finding the culprit! :) Can you apply this patch, build with CONFIG_EXT4FS_DEBUG=y, and see if an FS will mount without crashing? This was the cruddy patch I sent in (and later killed) that fixed the crash on mount with EXT4FS_DEBUG in a somewhat silly way. Maybe it's appropriate now. http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-ext4/msg43287.html --D > > Secondly: > > Thanks for that git tree! However, I discovered that the same "RCU bug" I > thought I was seeing on the Panda was also visible on the x86_64 KVM, and > it was actually just RCU noticing stalls. These also occurred when using > your git tree as well as on mainline 3.15-rc1 and 3.15-rc2 and during > bisection attempts on 3.15-rc3 within the ext4 patches, and had the effect of > masking the regression on the root filesystem. The test system would lock up > completely - no console response - and made it impossible to force the reboot > which was required to set up the failure. Hence the reversion approach, since > RCU does not report stalls in 3.15-rc3 (final). > > Eric > > > > > > > Thanks!! > > > > - Ted > -- > 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 -- 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
