----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dave Chinner" <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > To: "CAI Qian" <caiqian@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "linux-kernel" <linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:07:48 PM > Subject: Re: 3.8-rc5 xfs corruption > > On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 10:16:47PM -0500, CAI Qian wrote: > > Hello, > > > > (Sorry to post to xfs mailing lists but unsure about which one is > > the > > best for this.) > > Trimmed to just xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx. Thanks for quick response, Dave. > > > I have seen something like this once during testing on a system > > with a > > EMC VNX FC/multipath back-end. > > This is a trace from the verifier code that was added in 3.8-rc1 so > I doubt it has anything to do with any problem you've seen in the > past.... > > Can you tell us what workload you were running and what hardware you > are using as per: > > http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F This was the system, - AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 4130 (1 socket, 4 cores) - PowerEdge R415 - 8G memory - mptsas local disks Software version, - xfsprogs-3.1.10 The workload was running some fs_mark, syscalls tests, some nfs/cifs connectathon tests, memory, libhugetlbfs tests, and some dynamic debug (Documentation/dynamic-debug-howto.txt) tests. > > As it is, if you mounted the filesystem after this problem was > detected, log recovery probably propagated it to disk. I'd suggest > that you run xfs_repair -n on the device and post the output so we > can see if any corruption has actaully made it to disk. If no > corruption made it to disk, it's possible that we've got the > incorrect verifier attached to the buffer. The system was taken away from me, so I can only occupy it again later if needed. Regards, CAI Qian > > > [ 3025.063024] ffff8801a0d50000: 2e 2e 2f 2e 2e 2f 75 73 72 2f 6c > > 69 62 2f 6d 6f ../../usr/lib/mo > > The start of a block contains a path and the only > type of block that can contain this format of metadata is remote > symlink block. Remote symlink blocks don't have a verifier attached > to them as there is nothing that can currently be used to verify > them as correct. > > I can't see exactly how this can occur as stale buffers have the > verifier ops cleared before being returned to the new user, and > newly allocated xfs_bufs are zeroed before being initialised. I > really need to know what you are doing to be able to get to the > bottom of it.... > > Cheers, > > Dave. > -- > Dave Chinner > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
