Search String: Display: Description: Sort:

Results:

References: [ +subject:/^(?:^\s*(re|sv|fwd|fw)[\[\]\d]*[:>-]+\s*)*2\.6\.31\s+xfs_fs_destroy_inode\:\s+cannot\s+reclaim\s*$/: 28 ]

Total 28 documents matching your query.

1. 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2009 12:27:21 +0200
Hello All, We had this error reported on the list about 1 or 2 months ago. During that time a lot of fixes were applied. However, we still experience this problem with the recent 2.6.31 tree. We've a
/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00165.html (8,184 bytes)

2. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 2009 14:59:53 -0400
Can you try the patch below, its does two things - remove all that reclaimable flagging if we reclaim the inode directly. This removes any possibility of racing with the reclaiming thread. - adds ass
/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00175.html (10,155 bytes)

3. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 12:15:42 +0200
We had this error reported on the list about 1 or 2 months ago. During that time a lot of fixes were applied. However, we still experience this problem with the recent 2.6.31 tree. We've also applied
/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00230.html (8,670 bytes)

4. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 2009 08:57:02 -0400
Thanks. I'll prepare a patch for upstream as the patch is extremly useful by itself. IF other issues show up I'll fix it on top of it.
/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00234.html (8,258 bytes)

5. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:48:55 +0200
Thanks. I'll prepare a patch for upstream as the patch is extremly useful by itself. IF other issues show up I'll fix it on top of it. Unfortunately we had a crashing server last night. Please see at
/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00239.html (9,015 bytes)

6. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:41:04 -0400
Can't really see much there except some common code. Can you boot the machine with a larger console resolution (vga= kernel parameter) so a full backtrace can be captured?
/archives/xfs/2009-09/msg00240.html (9,446 bytes)

7. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Bas Couwenberg <bas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:24:39 +0200
Dear Christoph, Yesterday two of our servers (2.6.31.1 + your patch) crashed again, this time we have a bigger console, but not the full backtrace unfortunately. I did manage to get some more calltra
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00011.html (29,340 bytes)

8. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 2009 17:43:48 -0400
It helps a bit, but not so much. I suspect it could be a double free of an inode, and I have identified a possible race window that could explain it. But all the traces are really weird and I think o
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00017.html (10,013 bytes)

9. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 11:04:13 +0200
Christoph Hellwig wrote: It helps a bit, but not so much. I suspect it could be a double free of an inode, and I have identified a possible race window that could explain it. But all the traces are r
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00019.html (9,054 bytes)

10. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 21:19:26 -0400
I doubt it, but it's losely in the same area.
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00042.html (8,990 bytes)

11. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 2009 10:45:34 +0200
Attached is a screendump from 2.6.32.2 with your patches (including last one) applied, but without XFS_DEBUG. We will turn on XFS_DEBUG and see if that helps. Patrick Schreurs News-Service.com JPEG i
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00071.html (8,517 bytes)

12. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Patrick Schreurs <patrick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 09:43:09 +0200
Hello Christoph, Attached you'll find a screenshot from a 2.6.31.3 server, which includes your patches and has XFS_DEBUG turned on. I truly hope this is useful to you. Thanks again, -Patrick JPEG ima
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00091.html (9,030 bytes)

13. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2009 08:24:09 -0400
This is very helpful as the assertation that I put gets hit. Thanks a lot Patrick, I'll have another patch for you real soon.
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00093.html (9,250 bytes)

14. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 19:38:54 -0400
Thanks. The patch below should fix the inode reclaim race that could lead to the double free you're seeing. To be applied ontop of all the other patches I sent you. Index: xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sy
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00104.html (14,729 bytes)

15. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Tommy van Leeuwen <tommy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 17:06:57 +0200
Hi Christoph, Here are 2 more crashes with this patch applied, both having xfs_debug on and showing different traces (not inode reclaim related?). Hope it's usefull. Cheers, Tommy Attachment: sb08-20
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00154.html (11,549 bytes)

16. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 19:59:10 -0400
Can't make too much sense of it, but the dir2 is something you reported earlier already. We must be stomping over inodes somewhere, but I'm not too sure where exactly. Can you try throwing the patch
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00168.html (12,011 bytes)

17. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:16:00 +1100
Did you mean to remove this write_lock? The patch does not remove the unlocks.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00170.html (11,571 bytes)

18. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:17:10 +1100
This needs an IRELE(ip) here, doesn't it? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00171.html (12,098 bytes)

19. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:53:15 -0400
No, the check is before the igrab now. That was kinda the point as I suspect that the igrab might be corrupting state of a reclaimable or in reclaim inode.
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00174.html (11,104 bytes)

20. Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim (score: 1)
Author: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 18 Oct 2009 23:54:26 -0400
It's taken by the caller.
/archives/xfs/2009-10/msg00175.html (10,386 bytes)


This search system is powered by Namazu