[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4e946dfd-96ca-44cc-6184-a354b8235ed1@icdsoft.com>
Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2022 23:50:48 +0200
From: Ivan Zahariev <famzah@...soft.com>
To: Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: kernel BUG at fs/ext4/inode.c:1914 - page_buffers()
On 5.12.2022 г. 23:10, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> Is it fair to say that your workload is using data=journaled and is
> frequently truncating that might have been recently modified (hence
> triggering the race between truncate and journalled writepages)?
The servers are hosting hundreds of users who run their own tasks and we
have no control nor a way to closely observe their usage pattern. Unless
you point us in a direction to debug this somehow.
"data=journaled" is definitely in place for all servers.
> I wonder if you could come up with a more reliable reproducer so we
> can test a particular patch.
We already tried different parallel combinations of mmap()'ed reading,
direct and regular write(), drop_caches, sync(), etc. but we can't
trigger the panic.
If you have any suggestions what we should try next as a reproducer,
please share and we will try to implement and execute it.
Did I understand correctly that a possible reproducer would be a loop of
heavy write() followed by truncate() of the same file? Should we
randomly sync() and/or "echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches" to increase
the chance of hitting the bug?
Best regards.
--Ivan
Powered by blists - more mailing lists