On 6/11/15 10:28 AM, Török Edwin wrote: > On 06/11/2015 06:16 PM, Brian Foster wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 09:23:38AM +0300, Török Edwin wrote: >>> [1.] XFS on ARM corruption 'Structure needs cleaning' >>> [2.] Full description of the problem/report: >>> >>> I have been running XFS sucessfully on x86-64 for years, however I'm having trouble running it on ARM. >>> >>> Running the testcase below [7.] reliably reproduces the filesystem corruption starting from a freshly >>> created XFS filesystem: running ls after 'sxadm node --new --batch /export/dfs/a/b' shows a 'Structure needs cleaning' error, >>> and dmesg shows a corruption error [6.]. >>> xfs_repair 3.1.9 is not able to repair the corruption: after mounting the repair filesystem >>> I still get the 'Structure needs cleaning' error. >>> >>> Note: using /export/dfs/a/b is important for reproducing the problem: if I only use one level of directories in /export/dfs then the problem >>> doesn't reproduce. Also if I use a tuned version of sxadm that creates fewer database files then the problem doesn't reproduce either. >>> >>> [3.] Keywords: filesystems, XFS corruption, ARM >>> [4.] Kernel information >>> [4.1.] Kernel version (from /proc/version): >>> Linux hornet34 3.14.3-00088-g7651c68 #24 Thu Apr 9 16:13:46 MDT 2015 armv7l GNU/Linux >>> >> ... >>> [5.] Most recent kernel version which did not have the bug: Unknown, first kernel I try on ARM >>> >>> [6.] dmesg stacktrace >>> >>> [4627578.440000] XFS (sda4): Mounting Filesystem >>> [4627578.510000] XFS (sda4): Ending clean mount >>> [4627621.470000] dd6ee000: 58 46 53 42 00 00 10 00 00 00 00 00 37 40 21 00 XFSB........7@!. >>> [4627621.480000] dd6ee010: 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 ................ >>> [4627621.490000] dd6ee020: 5b 08 7f 79 0e 3a 46 3d 9b ea 26 ad 9d 62 17 8d [..y.:F=..&..b.. >>> [4627621.490000] dd6ee030: 00 00 00 00 20 00 00 04 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 80 .... ........... >> >> Just a data point... the magic number here looks like a superblock magic >> (XFSB) rather than one of the directory magic numbers. I'm wondering if >> a buffer disk address has gone bad somehow or another. >> >> Does this happen to be a large block device? I don't see any partition >> or xfs_info data below. If so, it would be interesting to see if this >> reproduces on a smaller device. It does appear that the large block >> device option is enabled in the kernel config above, however, so maybe >> that's unrelated. > > This is mkfs.xfs /dev/sda4: > meta-data=/dev/sda4 isize=256 agcount=4, agsize=231737408 blks > = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=0 > data = bsize=4096 blocks=926949632, imaxpct=5 > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 > log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=452612, version=2 > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > But it also reproduces with this small loopback file: > meta-data=/tmp/xfs.test isize=256 agcount=2, agsize=5120 blks > = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=0 > data = bsize=4096 blocks=10240, imaxpct=25 > = sunit=0 swidth=0 blks > naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 > log =internal log bsize=4096 blocks=1200, version=2 > = sectsz=512 sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1 > realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 ok so not a block number overflow issue, thanks. > You can have a look at xfs.test here: http://vol-public.s3.indian.skylable.com:8008/armel/testcase/xfs.test.gz > > If I loopback mount that on an x86-64 box it doesn't show the corruption message though ... FWIW, this is the 2nd report we've had of something similar, both on Armv7, both ok on x86_64. I'll take a look at your xfs.test; that's presumably copied after it reported the error, and you unmounted it before uploading, correct? And it was mkfs'd on armv7, never mounted or manipulated in any way on x86_64? Thanks, -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
