Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:56:11 -0500 | From | Eric Sandeen <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.18 ext3 panic. |
| |
Jan Kara wrote:
>>> I think Eric's patch may be a part of it. But we still need to check whether >>> the buffer is not after EOF before submitting it (or better said just >>> after we manage to lock the buffer). Because while we are waiting for >>> the buffer lock, journal_unmap_buffer() can still come and steal the >>> buffer - at least the write-out in journal_dirty_data() definitely needs >>> the check if I haven't overlooked something. >> Ok, let me think on that today. My first reaction is that if we have >> the bh state lock and pay attention to mapped in journal_dirty_data(), >> then any blocks past EOF which have gotten unmapped by >> journal_unmap_buffer will be recognized as such (because they are now >> unmapped... without needing to check for past EOF...) and we'll be fine. > Hmm, yes, you're right. If we do the test in journal_dirty_data() we > should not file unmapped buffer into transaction's list and hence we > should be safe. Fine. In case we eventually hit the assertion, we can > think further ;).
Awww no way that can possibly happen right? :)
>> As a datapoint, davej's stresstest (several fsx's and fsstresses) >> survived an overnight run on his box, which used to panic in < 2 hrs. >> Survived about 6 hours on my box until I intentionally stopped it; my >> box had added a write/truncate test in a loop, with a bunch of periodic >> syncs as well.... > Perfect :).
Ok, thanks Jan!
I'll send a patch for -mm as a new thread, this one has gotten buried pretty deep.
-Eric - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |