[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:0.047 / U:10.980 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site