Bug 13060 - XFS kernel error shortly after upgrade from 2.6.28 to 2.6.29.1
XFS kernel error shortly after upgrade from 2.6.28 to 2.6.29.1
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA
Product: File System
Classification: Unclassified
Component: XFS
All Linux
: P1 normal
Assigned To: XFS Guru
:
Depends on:
Blocks: 12398
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2009-04-10 13:32 UTC by rm+bko
Modified: 2009-04-26 11:52 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Kernel Version: 2.6.29.1
Tree: Mainline
Regression: Yes


Attachments
2.6.29.1 kernel config (90.32 KB, application/octet-stream)
2009-04-10 13:32 UTC, rm+bko
Details

Description rm+bko 2009-04-10 13:32:57 UTC
Created attachment 20922 [details]
2.6.29.1 kernel config

Shortly after an upgrade from 2.6.28 to 2.6.29.1, when I was copying a large tree of files and directories, I had an XFS-related kernel error (and machine lockup).

Same machine works on 2.6.28 without any problems for weeks. I have rolled back the kernel for now.

The filesystem in question is situated on a dm-crypt LUKS volume (if that might've had an impact on something).

The error message displayed before lock up was:
-----------------------------

invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP

last sysfs file: /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu1/cache/index2/shared_cpu_map

Stack:
 ffff8800bc8e5d60 ffff8800b26015c0 ffff8800bc8e5d60 ffffffffa01b34e6
 ffffffff80790d00 ffffffff80790d00 000000000000008a ffffffffa01a445c

Call Trace:
 [<ffffffffa01b4fe6>] ? xfs_inode_set_reclaim_tag+0x86/0xc0 [xfs]
 [<ffffffffa01a445c>] ? xfs_reclaim+0x4c/0xd0 [xfs]
 [<ffffffffa01b34e6>] ? xfs_fs_destroy_inode+0x36/0x60 [xfs]
 [<ffffffff802f45e6>] ? dispose_list+0xa6/0x120
 [<ffffffff802f48cf>] ? shrink_icache_memory+0x26f/0x2e0
 [<ffffffff802b30ec>] ? shrink_slab+0x12c/0x190
 [<ffffffff802b38cb>] ? kswapd+0x4db/0x6c0
 [<ffffffff802b0ce0>] ? isolate_pages_global+0x0/0x280
 [<ffffffff80261d00>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x30
 [<ffffffff8023b323>] ? __wake_up_common+0x53/0x80
 [<ffffffff802b33f0>] ? kswapd+0x0/0x6c0
 [<ffffffff802618c7>] ? kthread+0x47/0x80
 [<ffffffff8020d75a>] ? child_rip+0xa/0x20
 [<ffffffff80261880>] ? kthread+0x0/0x80
 [<ffffffff8020d750>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
Comment 1 Rafael J. Wysocki 2009-04-26 11:51:39 UTC
There's not been any followup, closing.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.