[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1106271714350.3845@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 17:30:11 +0200 (CEST)
From: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
cc: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>,
"Moffett, Kyle D" <Kyle.D.Moffett@...ing.com>,
Sean Ryle <seanbo@...il.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>,
"615998@...s.debian.org" <615998@...s.debian.org>,
"linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Sachin Sant <sachinp@...ibm.com>,
"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: Bug#615998: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Repeatable "kernel
BUG at fs/jbd2/commit.c:534" from Postfix on ext4
On Mon, 27 Jun 2011, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Mon 27-06-11 13:16:50, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > > On Fri 24-06-11 11:03:52, Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
> > > > On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:46, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > On Thu 23-06-11 16:19:08, Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
> > > > >> Besides which, line 534 in the Debian 2.6.32 kernel I am using is this
> > > > >> one:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> J_ASSERT(commit_transaction->t_nr_buffers <=
> > > > >> commit_transaction->t_outstanding_credits);
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm, OK, so we've used more metadata buffers than we told JBD2 to
> > > > > reserve. I suppose you are not using data=journal mode and the filesystem
> > > > > was created as ext4 (i.e. not converted from ext3), right? Are you using
> > > > > quotas?
> > > >
> > > > The filesystem *is* using data=journal mode. If I switch to data=ordered
> > > > or data=writeback, the problem goes away.
> > > Ah, OK. Then bug https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34642 is
> > > probably ext3 incarnation of the same problem and it seems it's still
> > > present even in the current kernel - that ext3 assertion triggered even
> > > with 2.6.39 kernel. Frankly data=journal mode is far less tested than the
> > > other two modes especially with ext4, so I'm not sure how good idea is to
> > > use it in production.
>
> Hi Lukas,
>
> > if it is so (and it probably is, since I am not testing this mode as
> > well:), it would be interesting to find out whether there are many users
> > of this and if there are not, which is probably the case, deprecate it now,
> > so we can remove it later. If we are openly suggesting not to use this,
> > then there is probably no point in having this option in the first
> > place.
> For about one year I'm trying to look for people using data=journal and
> I've found some. So although data=journal users are minority, there are
> some. That being said I agree with you we should do something about it
> - either state that we want to fully support data=journal - and then we
> should really do better with testing it or deprecate it and remove it
> (which would save us some complications in the code).
>
> I would be slightly in favor of removing it (code simplicity, less options
> to configure for admin, less options to test for us, some users I've come
> across actually were not quite sure why they are using it - they just
> thought it looks safer).
>
> Honza
>
I completely agree with you. Also I find it really dangerous that the
option which looks much safer is in fact less safe, because just a
minority of people (including developers) are testing it.
Thanks!
-Lukas
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Powered by blists - more mailing lists