Subject : Kernel 2.6.30.4 XFS(..?) regression Submitter : Justin Piszcz <jpiszcz@lucidpixels.com> Date : 2009-08-08 8:39 References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=124972079229959&w=4 Notify-Also : Felix Blyakher <felixb@sgi.com> This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.29. Please don't close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.
Hello, So far with 2.6.31-rc6 the issue has not recurred.. I am not sure if you want to keep this open/re-open if it recurs or leave it pending until 2.6.31 is released? Justin.
Closing for now, please reopen if it happens again.
Hello, It has happened again. $ uptime 04:18:06 up 1 day, 16:00, 3 users, load average: 62.95, 61.97, 58.64 USER PID %CPU %MEM VSZ RSS TTY STAT START TIME COMMAND root 209 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D Aug20 0:05 [pdflush] root 217 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D< Aug20 0:01 [xfsdatad/0] root 1999 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D< Aug20 0:10 [loop0] root 2008 0.0 0.0 0 0 ? D< Aug20 0:00 [xfssyncd] [144104.513619] cron S 00000000 0 19969 1868 0x00000000 [144104.513619] 00000000 00000086 c1805b80 00000000 00000000 c67728c0 c13eb17c c150e100 [144104.513619] c49f0200 cc69fed8 cc69ff5c 00001000 c106a8c5 00000000 c1805b80 c102d930 [144104.513619] c49f0200 c49f0200 c9283ca0 cc69fed8 c106b1b6 aead521a cc69ff5c cf5459dc [144104.513619] Call Trace: [144104.513619] [<c106a8c5>] ? pipe_wait+0x45/0x60 [144104.513619] [<c102d930>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50 [144104.513619] [<c106b1b6>] ? pipe_read+0x366/0x420 [144104.513619] [<c1041bcc>] ? find_get_page+0x1c/0x60 [144104.513619] [<c1064595>] ? do_sync_read+0xd5/0x120 [144104.513619] [<c102d930>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x50 [144104.513619] [<c1053e80>] ? handle_mm_fault+0x140/0x510 [144104.513619] [<c10644c0>] ? do_sync_read+0x0/0x120 [144104.513619] [<c10651cd>] ? vfs_read+0x9d/0x160 [144104.513619] [<c1065361>] ? sys_read+0x41/0x80 [144104.513619] [<c1002b88>] ? sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x26
The problem persists, one can "work-around" the bug by mounting with -o nobarrier but this is unsafe.
Mounting with -o nobarrier is no more unsafe than it was when the loop driver didn't support barriers at all. I'd suggest reverting the barrier support if no other solution can be found.