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

Re: [Linux-cluster] gfs2 assertion "!mapping->nrpages" failed on rsync



On Wednesday 02 December 2009 14:48, Whitehouse Steven wrote:
--
Hi,

On Wed, 2009-12-02 at 14:09 +0200, Dan Candea wrote:
> hello
> 
> randomly , during a nightly backup with rsync I receive the error below on a 
3 
> node setup with cluster2.  because of the withdraw I can't unmount without a 
> reboot.
> 
> does someone have a clue?
> 
> 
> GFS2: fsid=data:FSdata.0: fatal: assertion "!mapping->nrpages" failed
> GFS2: fsid=data:FSdata.0:   function = gfs2_meta_inval, file = 
> fs/gfs2/meta_io.c, line = 110
> GFS2: fsid=data:FSdata.0: about to withdraw this file system
> GFS2: fsid=data:FSdata.0: telling LM to withdraw
> GFS2: fsid=data:FSdata.0: withdrawn
> Pid: 4643, comm: glock_workqueue Not tainted 2.6.28-hardened-r9 #1
I don't recognise this kernel version, which distro is it from?

its a kernel with grsecurity applied from gentoo


Can you reproduce this issue? I've heard of an issue involving rsync,
but having now tried various different rsync commands, I've not been
able to reproduce anything that fails.


I'll try to reproduce it after the reboot, which I have to do it by night, but 
I'm not sure I'll make something of it, cause the error is spontaneous, while 
the rsync is ran each day.

> Call Trace:
>  [<ffffffffa008e4ea>] 0xffffffffa008e4ea
>  [<ffffffff8025ecee>] 0xffffffff8025ecee
>  [<ffffffffa0091307>] 0xffffffffa0091307
>  [<ffffffffa008f640>] 0xffffffffa008f640
>  [<ffffffffa000fc18>] 0xffffffffa000fc18
>  [<ffffffffa000bfe8>] 0xffffffffa000bfe8
>  [<ffffffff8022605c>] 0xffffffff8022605c
>  [<ffffffffa008f060>] 0xffffffffa008f060
>  [<ffffffffa008e5cb>] 0xffffffffa008e5cb
>  [<ffffffffa00912f3>] 0xffffffffa00912f3
>  [<ffffffffa0077a9b>] 0xffffffffa0077a9b
>  [<ffffffffa0076a03>] 0xffffffffa0076a03
>  [<ffffffffa00771f7>] 0xffffffffa00771f7
>  [<ffffffff8023b43e>] 0xffffffff8023b43e
>  [<ffffffff8023b571>] 0xffffffff8023b571
>  [<ffffffff8023eee5>] 0xffffffff8023eee5
>  [<ffffffff8023eee5>] 0xffffffff8023eee5
>  [<ffffffff8023b4d8>] 0xffffffff8023b4d8
>  [<ffffffff8023e794>] 0xffffffff8023e794
>  [<ffffffff802035e9>] 0xffffffff802035e9
>  [<ffffffff8023e72b>] 0xffffffff8023e72b
>  [<ffffffff802035df>] 0xffffffff802035df
> 
This set of numbers is pretty useless without being translated into
symbols. On the other hand the assertion which you've hit is GFS2
complaining that its requested that the pages relating to an inode to be
invalidated, but there are some that have not been removed after that
invalidation. So in this particular case it doesn't matter,



Here are you saying that it could be an inconsistency in the FS?

Steve.

> 
> regards

thank you

-- 
Dan Cândea
Does God Play Dice?


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