From: Adam Borowski <kilobyte@angband.pl>
To: Jeff Mahoney <jeffm@suse.com>
Cc: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Transaction aborted in btrfs_rename2
Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2016 18:13:11 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160729161311.GA15356@angband.pl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <9373294e-c59b-0360-8481-328f03216926@suse.com>
On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 11:43:29AM -0400, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> On 6/6/16 10:13 AM, Jeff Mahoney wrote:
> > On 6/6/16 7:47 AM, Adam Borowski wrote:
> >> Hi!
> >> I just got this thrice, in 4.7-rc1 and 4.7-rc2:
> >>
> >> [ 1836.672368] ------------[ cut here ]------------
> >> [ 1836.672382] WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 16348 at fs/btrfs/inode.c:9820 btrfs_rename2+0xcd2/0x2a50
> >> [ 1836.672385] BTRFS: Transaction aborted (error -2)
> >> [ 1836.672396] CPU: 1 PID: 16348 Comm: gcc-6 Tainted: P O 4.7.0-rc2-debug+ #3
> >> [ 1836.672415] Call Trace:
> >> [ 1836.672423] [<ffffffff8165be6d>] dump_stack+0x4e/0x71
> >> [ 1836.672429] [<ffffffff81110c1c>] __warn+0x10c/0x150
> >> [ 1836.672433] [<ffffffff81110caa>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x4a/0x50
> >> [ 1836.672437] [<ffffffff814f4842>] btrfs_rename2+0xcd2/0x2a50
> >> [ 1836.672443] [<ffffffff814dfcfb>] ? btrfs_permission+0x5b/0xc0
> >> [ 1836.672448] [<ffffffff81d288c8>] ? down_write+0x18/0x60
> >> [ 1836.672453] [<ffffffff8133a0cc>] vfs_rename+0x7cc/0xc30
> >> [ 1836.672457] [<ffffffff8133dc8b>] SyS_rename+0x32b/0x420
> >> [ 1836.672461] [<ffffffff81d2ab9f>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x17/0x93
> >> [ 1836.672464] ---[ end trace 6405b6e3d0e6c945 ]---
> >> [ 1836.672468] BTRFS warning (device sda1): btrfs_rename:9820: Aborting unused transaction(No such entry).
> >> [ 1836.675505] BTRFS warning (device sda1): btrfs_rename:9820: Aborting unused transaction(No such entry).
> >> <repeated 1152 times>
> >
> > Oh, interesting. We're seeing this on our 4.4-based kernels as well but
> > only on arm64. That it's triggering on x86_64 is a good data point.
> > I'm hunting this one today.
>
> I was finally able to track down what this was on arm64, and I'm afraid
> the news won't help you much. It was a bug in gcc 4.8.5 instruction
> scheduling around function return that caused the stack pointer to be
> restored to the position at the beginning of the function while the
> stack was still being used via a separate register. If an interrupt
> arrived between those two instructions, you'd get stack corruption that
> would present as bad hash values.
>
> Are you still able to reproduce this on x86_64?
Nope, not in quite a while. I haven't used middle 4.7 rcs so I don't know
when it went away.
I use gcc-6, too.
--
An imaginary friend squared is a real enemy.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-07-29 16:13 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-06-06 11:47 Transaction aborted in btrfs_rename2 Adam Borowski
2016-06-06 14:13 ` Jeff Mahoney
2016-07-29 15:43 ` Jeff Mahoney
2016-07-29 16:13 ` Adam Borowski [this message]
2016-07-29 16:20 ` Jeff Mahoney
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20160729161311.GA15356@angband.pl \
--to=kilobyte@angband.pl \
--cc=jeffm@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.