Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 4 Jun 2008 15:13:25 -0400 | From | "Chuck Lever" <> | Subject | Re: NFS oops in 2.6.26rc4 |
| |
On Wed, Jun 4, 2008 at 2:20 PM, Dave Jones <davej@redhat.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 04, 2008 at 02:13:08PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > On Jun 4, 2008, at 10:19 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > > > > > On Fri, May 30, 2008 at 03:37:01PM -0400, Chuck Lever wrote: > > > > > >>> Something else of note which I hadn't seen before, usually things > > >>> lock > > >>> up just after that first oops. For some reason, today it survived > > >>> a little longer, but things really went downhill fast. > > >>> It survived a 'dmesg ; scp dmesg davej@gelk', and then wedged solid. > > >>> So as well as the oops, it seems we're corrupting memory too. > > >>> For reference, this kernel has both SLUB_DEBUG and PAGEALLOC_DEBUG > > >>> enabled. > > >> > > >> I haven't seen this kind of problem here with .26, but yes, it does > > >> look like something is clobbering memory during an NFS mount. > > >> > > >> I introduced some NFS mount parsing changes in this commit range: > > >> > > >> 2d767432..82d101d5 > > >> > > >> A quick bisect should show which, if any of these, is the guilty > > >> party. If any of these are the problem, I suspect it's 3f8400d1. > > > > > > I didn't get time to try this out yet (hopefully tomorrow). > > > In the meantime, we've just gotten word of another user seeing memory > > > corruption with nfs - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=449958 > > > > 449958 could very well be the same problem. The stack traceback is a > > lot cleaner than the one you originally sent, but there are a lot of > > similarities. (I doubt this is related to symlinks, as the comment > > suggests). > > > > Is commit 86d61d863 applied to the current rawhide kernel? > > That kernel was .26rc4.git2, so unless it's only gone in in the last day > or two, yes. (Bandwidth impaired right now, and no local git repo to check)
Argh, I was afraid of that. I expected that commit to improve things. Maybe it did, but this is a different problem? You're going to force me to actually think about this. :-)
In any event, a bisect would be helpful here, when you can. I will also stare at the traceback in 449958 and see if anything new jumps out. It's certainly taken the heat off of the NFS client; it looks like an rpcbind issue.
-- Chuck Lever chuck[dot]lever[at]oracle[dot]com
| |