On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 02:48:25PM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:26:01AM +0200, Laurent CARON wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 11:03:53AM +0200, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > That's: > > > > > > BUG_ON(async_tx_test_ack(depend_tx) || txd_next(depend_tx) || > > > txd_parent(tx)); > > > > > > but probably the b0rkage happens up the stack. And this __raid_run_ops > > > is probably starting the whole TX so maybe we should add > > > linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx to CC. Added. > > > > > > Hi, > > > > The machines seem stable after disabling I/O AT DMA at the BIOS level. > > That's a good point because the backtrace goes through I/O AT DMA so it > could very well be the culprit. Let's add some more people to Cc. > > Vinod/Dan, here's the BUG_ON Laurent is hitting: > > http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=135033064724794&w=2 > > and it has ioat2_tx_submit_unlock in the backtrace. Disabling ioat dma > in the BIOS makes the issue disappear so ... > > > > What is that "r510" thing in the kernel version? You have your patches > > > ontop? If yes, please try reproducing this with a kernel.org kernel > > > without anything else ontop. > > > > My kernel is vanilla from Kernel.org. The -r510 string is because I > > tried it on a -r510 also. > > Ok, good. > > > > Also, it might be worth trying plain 3.6 to rule out a regression > > > introduced in the stable 3.6 series. > > > > I tried 3.5.x, 3.6, 3.6.1, 3.6.2 with exactly the same results. > > > > For now, I did create more volumes, rsync lors of data over the network > > to the disks with no crashs (after disabling I/O AT DMA). > > And when you do this with ioat dma enabled, you get the bug, right? So > it is reproducible...? It is 100% reproductible. The only "nondeterministic" point is the time it takes to have the machine crash. -- 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
