[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: LVM 0.9.1beta7 and ext3 0.0.6b

On Sat, 5 May 2001, Andreas Dilger wrote:

> Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 10:20:02 -0600 (MDT)
> From: Andreas Dilger <adilger turbolinux com>
> Reply-To: ext3-users redhat com
> To: ext3-users redhat com
> Cc: lvm-devel sistina com, Stephen C. Tweedie <sct redhat com>
> Subject: Re: LVM 0.9.1beta7 and ext3 0.0.6b
> Jay writes:
> > I've recently been playing about with recent ext3 0.0.6b and lvm 0.9.1
> > beta7 and am now able to trigger an "Attempt to refile free buffer"
> > assertion.
> >
> > This seems to "only" occur when using ext3 on the root filesystem.
> > Possibly that is related to the fact that the lvm utility I'm using to
> > reproduce this problem is modifying data in /etc.
> Yes, I had this same problem with LVM 0.9.1b7 and ext3 0.0.6b.
> > The easist reproduction case I've come across to generate the assertion is
> > to load up lvm (insmod if necessary) and then run:
> >
> > 	while /bin/true; do vgscan -v; done
> The same is true even if you only do pvscan (this has no chance to blow
> up your LVM configuration).  The reason is because of LVM calling
> invalidate_buffers on all of the devices (I believe), but I haven't tracked
> down all of the reasons it is happening.  In __invalidate_buffers, Stephen
> asked to add in "&& bh->b_jlist == BJ_None" to the checks for put_last_free(),
> but this only reduced the assertions and did not remove them entirely.

Okay, at least it's not just me then.

> > Again, it doesn't seem to generate the problem when using ext2 on the root
> > filesystem even if I have ext3 in use on seperate filesystems.  Also, you
> > do not need to have an LVM device actively mounted to generate this.  In
> > my case I have no active lvm devices up and running, just lvm-mod
> > insmoded.
> This is more than what I figured out.  Initially, I thought it had to do
> with the LVM devices themselves (on which I was running ext3), but after
> putting in debugging I also see that the buffers belong to the root device.
> In my case, I have data journaling on root.  Is this the case for you?

I typically use the default ordered mode journaling on root.  I haven't
tried with the different journaling types and that brings up an
interesting question.  Will try them also and see if the results differ in
any way.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]