Subject : Dirtiable inode bdi default != sb bdi btrfs
Submitter : Cesar Eduardo Barros <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date : 2010-09-23 0:54
Message-ID : 4C9AA546.email@example.com
References : http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=128520328929595&w=2
This entry is being used for tracking a regression from 2.6.35. Please don't
close it until the problem is fixed in the mainline.
Still happening as of v2.6.36-rc5-149-g56162ba.
*** Bug 19082 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Christoph and I talked this bug over last night. Btrfs cannot do the simple/naive fix and always set the bdi on all my inodes, because it will cause problems on some special inodes (block devices, char devices).
But the mark_inode_dirty call is going to complain for every inode. He is going to work up an alternative patch.
On Saturday, October 02, 2010, Ted Ts'o wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 10:04:15PM +0200, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote:
> > The following bug entry is on the current list of known regressions
> > from 2.6.35. Please verify if it still should be listed and let the
> tracking team
> > know (either way).
> > Bug-Entry : http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19062
> > Subject : Dirtiable inode bdi default != sb bdi btrfs
> > Submitter : Cesar Eduardo Barros <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > Date : 2010-09-23 0:54 (4 days old)
> > Message-ID : <4C9AA546.email@example.com>
> Note: I'm seeing this warning (Dirtiable inode bdi default != sb bdi)
> when I moved from 2.6.36-rc3 to 2.6.36-rc6, using ext4 as a root
> partition, and running mke2fs and e2fsck on ext2, ext3, and ext4 file
> systems. So I'm seeing this as a known regression from rc3 to rc6.
> Maybe it's different bug with ext4, but in any case, it's highly
That seems to be a generic issue, I can reproduce it on ext4 and ecryptfs, for example:
[ 234.977029] ------------[ cut here ]------------
[ 234.977041] WARNING: at fs/fs-writeback.c:87 inode_to_bdi+0x55/0x5e()
[ 234.977044] Hardware name: 03017VG
[ 234.977046] Dirtiable inode bdi default != sb bdi ecryptfs
[ 234.977048] Modules linked in: vboxnetadp vboxnetflt vboxdrv
[ 234.977055] Pid: 2034, comm: chromium-browse Tainted: G W 2.6.36-rc6+ #2
[ 234.977057] Call Trace:
[ 234.977065] [<ffffffff810648b4>] ? warn_slowpath_common+0x78/0x8c
[ 234.977069] [<ffffffff81064967>] ? warn_slowpath_fmt+0x45/0x4a
[ 234.977072] [<ffffffff81121941>] ? inode_to_bdi+0x55/0x5e
[ 234.977076] [<ffffffff81122b46>] ? __mark_inode_dirty+0xc0/0x185
[ 234.977081] [<ffffffff81118cb8>] ? file_update_time+0xf6/0x121
[ 234.977087] [<ffffffff810cc097>] ? __generic_file_aio_write+0x164/0x280
[ 234.977092] [<ffffffff81057338>] ? __wake_up+0x35/0x46
[ 234.977097] [<ffffffff810fe4f6>] ? virt_to_head_page+0x9/0x2c
[ 234.977101] [<ffffffff810cc208>] ? generic_file_aio_write+0x55/0x9f
[ 234.977105] [<ffffffff81107c10>] ? do_sync_write+0xb1/0xea
[ 234.977108] [<ffffffff81108124>] ? vfs_write+0xa4/0x100
[ 234.977111] [<ffffffff81108233>] ? sys_write+0x45/0x6b
[ 234.977117] [<ffffffff8102aa02>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
[ 234.977119] ---[ end trace 4c0d64d4c1e7929f ]---
I don't know the exact way of handling this, but if multiple filesystems are affected, this bug should be cloned or reassigned to something more general, shouldn't it?
*** Bug 19362 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Bug #19362 shows the same warning, but it's ext4!
The warning has been removed in commit aaead25b954879e1a708ff2f3602f494c18d20b5