From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-pg0-f43.google.com ([74.125.83.43]:34382 "EHLO mail-pg0-f43.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751619AbdAWWFP (ORCPT ); Mon, 23 Jan 2017 17:05:15 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id 14so48233734pgg.1 for ; Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:05:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2017 14:04:48 -0800 From: Omar Sandoval To: Chris Murphy Cc: Btrfs BTRFS , agruenba@redhat.com Subject: Re: read-only fs, kernel 4.9.0, fs/btrfs/delayed-inode.c:1170 __btrfs_run_delayed_items, Message-ID: <20170123220448.GB11778@vader.DHCP.thefacebook.com> References: <20170123213109.GA11778@vader.DHCP.thefacebook.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 02:55:21PM -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Jan 23, 2017 at 2:50 PM, Chris Murphy > > I haven't found the commit for that patch, so maybe it's something > > with the combination of that patch and the previous commit. > > I think that's provably not the case based on the bisect log, because > I hit the problem with kernel that has only the commit, as well as the > commit plus the updated patch. So the patch neither causes nor fixes > the problem I'm experiencing. > > If it's useful the btrfs-image is here; mentioned in a previous > thread, this image mounts find, btrfs check --mode=original has no > complaints, but btrfs check --mode=lowmem has complaints. There's no > problem using the parent subvolume as rootfs. Only snapshots of that > subvolume result in the problem. > https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_2Asp8DGjJ9ZmNxdEw1RDBPcTA What I meant to ask was if there were false positives/false negatives in booting from the subvolume that would lead you to doubt the results of the git bisect, but it sounds like it's 100% reproducible for you? I'll take a look at the image. In the meantime, could you try booting with https://gist.github.com/osandov/9f223bda27f3e1cd1ab9c1bd634c51a4 applied on top of 4.9 so we can hopefully narrow it down? It'd also be great to know if it always fails the same way or if it varies.