On Thu 10-01-19 03:31:14, 姜迎 wrote: > Hum, why do you think the patch below changes anything for the assertion > failure you mention above? The code that gets additionally covered by > j_list_lock is just handling of journal head frozen & b_committed_data > buffers... > > ==>Because kernel panic on J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == NULL). > > please see the following analysis, thanks. jh->b_transaction is set NULL > between J_ASSERT_JH(jh,jh-->b_transaction == commit_transaction ) and > __jbd2_journal_remove_checkpoint. > > [X] > > With which kernel version did you see the assertion failure? > > ==> I found this issue on kernel-3.10. But I see that the latest kernel > version also has this problem, but it is seldom reproduce. Can you help > to check ? Ah, ok. But the problem really is that __journal_remove_checkpoint() should not drop the last jh reference (and thus we should never get to __journal_remove_journal_head() with the assertion J_ASSERT_JH(jh, jh->b_transaction == NULL)). The committing transaction holds reference to the journal_head until __jbd2_journal_refile_buffer() either moves the reference to the next transaction or drops it. So what you observe rather seems like some bug in reference counting of journal heads and your patch isn't going to help. Honza -- Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> SUSE Labs, CR
