Re: Crash during raid6 reshape, now cannot restart?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 14:02, Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Dec 2010 07:43:05 +1100 Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> >
>> > raid5: reshape_position too early for auto-recovery - aborting.
>>
>> Something must be going wrong with the math in raid5:
>>
>>                if (mddev->delta_disks < 0
>>                     ? (here_new * mddev->new_chunk_sectors <=
>>                        here_old * mddev->chunk_sectors)
>>                     : (here_new * mddev->new_chunk_sectors >=
>>                        here_old * mddev->chunk_sectors)) {
>>                         /* Reading from the same stripe as writing to - bad */
>>                         printk(KERN_ERR "raid5: reshape_position too early for "
>>                                "auto-recovery - aborting.\n");
>>                         return -EINVAL;
>>                 }
>>
>> there 'here_new* new_chunk_size' must be over-flowing.  So the size of the
>> array must only just fit into sector_t.
>> On and arm5 you would need to have CONFIG_LBD set - do you know if it is?

Looking at what I think are the relevant kirkwood kernel config, I
only see CONFIG_LBDAF here:
http://merkel.debian.org/~jurij/

Which upon further investigation is the new name of CONFIG_LBD. So, I
believe so.

>> I guess I need to make that code more robust when sector_t doesn't have lots
>> more bits that the size of the device...
>>
>> If you can compile your own kernel, you should be able to get it to work
>> easily.  If not ... complain to whoever provided you with a kernel.

That'd be the nice folks working on debian squeeze.

> No ... I take that back.  here_new is the result of dividing the
> reshape_position by chunk_sector times number of disks.
> So multiplying by chunk_sectors again is not going to cause an overflow.
>
> So I have no idea what if going on here.... maybe a compiler bug?
>
> If you compile your own kernel, I would put some printk's in
> drives/md/raid5.c just before the above code to see what the values of the
> variables are, and to see what the results of the multiplications will be.

I'm happy to try my own kernel, but first I think I'll try pulling the
disks and putting them on an x86 machine to see if its actually
platform related. If that works, I can keep the broken array around
for a bit to troubleshoot on. Thanks!

-- 
Phil
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-raid" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html


[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID Wiki]     [ATA RAID]     [Linux SCSI Target Infrastructure]     [Linux Block]     [Linux IDE]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux Hams]     [Device Mapper]     [Device Mapper Cryptographics]     [Kernel]     [Linux Admin]     [Linux Net]     [GFS]     [RPM]     [git]     [Yosemite Forum]


  Powered by Linux