[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0612181151010.3479@woody.osdl.org>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 12:14:35 -0800 (PST)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>
To: Andrei Popa <andrei.popa@...eo.ro>
cc: Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hugh@...itas.com>,
Florian Weimer <fw@...eb.enyo.de>,
Marc Haber <mh+linux-kernel@...schlus.de>,
Martin Michlmayr <tbm@...ius.com>
Subject: Re: 2.6.19 file content corruption on ext3
On Mon, 18 Dec 2006, Andrei Popa wrote:
>
> I dropped that patch and added WARN_ON(1), the unified patch is
> attached.
>
> I got corruption: "Hash check on download completion found bad chunks,
> consider using "safe_sync"."
Ok. That is actually _very_ interesting.
It's interesting because (a) the corruption obviously goes away with the
one-liner that effectively disables "page_mkclean_one()".
So that tells us that yes, it's a PTE dirty bit that matters.
But at the same time, it's interesting that it still happens when we try
to re-add the dirty bit. That would tell me that it's one of two cases:
- there is another caller of page cleaning that should have done the same
thing (we could check that by just doing this all _inside_ the
page_mkclean() thing)
OR:
- page_mkclean_one() is simply buggy.
And I'm starting to wonder about the second case. But it all LOOKS really
fine - I can't see anything wrong there (it uses the extremely
conservative "ptep_get_and_clear()", and seems to flush everything right
too, through "ptep_establish()").
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists