[dm-devel] hunt for 2.6.37 dm-crypt+ext4 corruption? (was: Re: dm-crypt barrier support is effective)

[Jon Nelson]

On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:38 PM, Ted Ts'o <tytso at mit.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 02:53:30AM +0100, Matt wrote:
>>
>> Try a kernel before 5a87b7a5da250c9be6d757758425dfeaf8ed3179
>>
>> from the tests I've done that one showed the least or no corruption if
>> you count the empty /etc/env.d/03opengl as an artefact
>
> Yes, that's a good test.  Also try commit bd2d0210cf.  The patch
> series that is most likely to be at fault if there is a regression in
> between 5a87b7a5d and bd2d0210cf inclusive.
>
> I did a lot of testing before submitting it, but that wa a tricky
> rewrite.  If you can reproduce the problem reliably, it might be good
> to try commit 16828088f9 (the commit before 5a87b7a5d) and commit
> bd2d0210cf.  If it reliably reproduces on bd2d0210cf, but is clean on
> 16828088f9, then it's my ext4 block i/o submission patches, and we'll
> need to either figure out what's going on or back out that set of
> changes.
>
> If that's the case, a bisect of those changes (it's only 6 commits, so
> it shouldn't take long) would be most appreciated.

I observed the behavior on bd2d0210cf in a qemu-kvm install of
openSUSE 11.3 (x86_64) on *totally* different host - an AMD quad-core.

I did /not/ observe the behavior on 16828088f9 (yet). I'll run the
test a few more times on 1682..

Additionally, I am building a bisected kernel now (
cb20d5188366f04d96d2e07b1240cc92170ade40 ), but won't be able to get
back at it for a while.

I hope this helps.

-- 
Jon