Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: btrfs btree_ctree_super fault | From | Chris Mason <> | Date | Tue, 8 Nov 2016 10:08:04 -0500 |
| |
On 11/08/2016 09:59 AM, Dave Jones wrote: > On Sun, Nov 06, 2016 at 11:55:39AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > > <subject changed, hopefully we're done with bio corruption for now> > > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 01:44:55PM -0600, Chris Mason wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:35:16PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > > >On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 11:55 AM, Dave Jones <davej@codemonkey.org.uk> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> BUG: Bad page state in process kworker/u8:12 pfn:4e0e39 > > > >> page:ffffea0013838e40 count:0 mapcount:0 mapping:ffff8804a20310e0 index:0x100c > > > >> flags: 0x400000000000000c(referenced|uptodate) > > > >> page dumped because: non-NULL mapping > > > > > > > >Hmm. So this seems to be btrfs-specific, right? > > > > > > > >I searched for all your "non-NULL mapping" cases, and they all seem to > > > >have basically the same call trace, with some work thread doing > > > >writeback and going through btrfs_writepages(). > > > > > > > >Sounds like it's a race with either fallocate hole-punching or > > > >truncate. I'm not seeing it, but I suspect it's btrfs, since DaveJ > > > >clearly ran other filesystems too but I am not seeing this backtrace > > > >for anything else. > > > > > > Agreed, I think this is a separate bug, almost certainly btrfs specific. > > > I'll work with Dave on a better reproducer. > > > > Still refining my 'capture ftrace when trinity detects taint' feature, > > but in the meantime, here's a variant I don't think we've seen before: > > And another new one: > > kernel BUG at fs/btrfs/ctree.c:3172! > invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] PREEMPT SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC > CPU: 0 PID: 22702 Comm: trinity-c40 Not tainted 4.9.0-rc4-think+ #1 > task: ffff8804ffde37c0 task.stack: ffffc90002188000 > RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa00576b9>] > [<ffffffffa00576b9>] btrfs_set_item_key_safe+0x179/0x190 [btrfs] > RSP: 0000:ffffc9000218b8a8 EFLAGS: 00010246 > RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: ffff8804fddcf348 RCX: 0000000000001000 > RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: ffffc9000218b9ce RDI: ffffc9000218b8c7 > RBP: ffffc9000218b908 R08: 0000000000004000 R09: ffffc9000218b8c8 > R10: 0000000000000000 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffffc9000218b8b6 > R13: ffffc9000218b9ce R14: 0000000000000001 R15: ffff880480684a88 > FS: 00007f7c7f998b40(0000) GS:ffff880507800000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > CR2: 0000000000000000 CR3: 000000044f15f000 CR4: 00000000001406f0 > DR0: 00007f4ce439d000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000 > DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000600 > Stack: > ffff880501430000 d305ffffa00a2245 006c000000000002 0500000000000010 > 6c000000000002d3 0000000000001000 000000006427eebb ffff880480684a88 > 0000000000000000 ffff8804fddcf348 0000000000002000 0000000000000000 > Call Trace: > [<ffffffffa009cff0>] __btrfs_drop_extents+0xb00/0xe30 [btrfs]
We've been hunting this one for at least two years. It's the white whale of btrfs bugs. Josef has a semi-reliable reproducer now, but I think it's not the same as the pagevec based problems you reported earlier.
-chris
| |