[lkml]   [2006]   [Oct]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.18 ext3 panic.
> Jan Kara wrote:
> > Umm, but these two traces confuse me:
> >1) They are different traces that those you wrote about initially,
> >aren't they? Because here we would not call sync_dirty_buffer() from
> >journal_dirty_data().
> > BTW: Does this buffer trace lead to that Oops in submit_bh()? I guess not
> >as the buffer is not dirty...
> They do wind up at the same oops, from the same "testcase" (i.e. beat the
> tar out of the filesystem with multiple fsx's and fsstress...)
> The buffer is not dirty at that tracepoint because it has just done
> if (locked && test_clear_buffer_dirty(bh)) {
> prior to the tracepoint...
Oh, I see. OK.

> See the whole traces at
Hmm, those traces look really useful. I just have to digest them ;).

> As an aside, when we do journal_unmap_buffer... should it stay on
> t_sync_datalist?
Yes, it should and it seems it really was removed from it at some
point. Only later journal_dirty_data() came and filed it back to the
BJ_SyncData list. And the buffer remained unmapped till the commit time
and then *bang*... It may even be a race in ext3 itself that it called
journal_dirty_data() on an unmapped buffer but I have to read some more

Jan Kara <>
SuSE CR Labs
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-10-11 16:25    [W:0.069 / U:0.036 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site