From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D1D15C43334 for ; Fri, 10 Jun 2022 01:27:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S240244AbiFJB1M (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:27:12 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:40900 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S232417AbiFJB1L (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Jun 2022 21:27:11 -0400 Received: from mga04.intel.com (mga04.intel.com [192.55.52.120]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E2DEDA; Thu, 9 Jun 2022 18:27:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1654824430; x=1686360430; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=X87m7q3tNoU6oagLh7Y6DHIGCQb6dAM9+lllad+bC5A=; b=IuEHdeg5qlrQYBeObeT3REpTjVGbIixAnT9/OzjscFRrlg6GLOkYA9NA zkhPgnvcX13pb/cGLw5S1DhIrMuI0lZ3hWGzOLTRPHa4CwkWVwlWi51Vl rlmdJ92dRZq8zqvKYA94sIrXXW95UzSnMQglk5/Mdspfd2LydeagOouao SCyHPEve90+2AXbDvz2Jx6gMZ7AKJi9tysY5HFiuhfxFRFNa7T5ISdead 0qRcoIv/xu/hnVypcylazENb97r9FAU62kjrSQol4A4hegbaNjOhCPv/I bbcYD16pgjErabB9LXzcqzKjMYPz1Uu4KkQwDYIqSHm8GuTFr93iFL6BD A==; X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6400,9594,10373"; a="276247171" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,288,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="276247171" Received: from orsmga005.jf.intel.com ([10.7.209.41]) by fmsmga104.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2022 18:27:10 -0700 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.91,288,1647327600"; d="scan'208";a="760300997" Received: from xsang-optiplex-9020.sh.intel.com (HELO xsang-OptiPlex-9020) ([10.239.159.143]) by orsmga005-auth.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 09 Jun 2022 18:27:08 -0700 Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:26:59 +0800 From: Oliver Sang To: Filipe Manana Cc: 0day robot , LKML , linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org, lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [btrfs] 62bd8124e2: WARNING:at_fs/btrfs/block-rsv.c:#btrfs_release_global_block_rsv[btrfs] Message-ID: <20220610012659.GA6844@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> References: <20220608152303.GB31193@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> <20220609094652.GB3668047@falcondesktop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220609094652.GB3668047@falcondesktop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28) Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org hi, Filipe Manana, On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:46:52AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > > I am unable to reproduce that on a 12 cores box. > I also don't see anything wrong that could lead to that by manual inspection. > > How easy is it for you to trigger it? we reproduced this upon 62bd8124e2 4 times out of 6 runs. but since the other 2 runs crash early due to other issues (below (1)), we cannot say they are clean. at the same time, the 6 runs for parent are clean. 7e2bb5b3f3bca223 62bd8124e2f17910fcd89568e50 ---------------- --------------------------- fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs | | | :6 67% 4:6 dmesg.RIP:btrfs_release_global_block_rsv[btrfs] :6 67% 4:6 dmesg.WARNING:at_fs/btrfs/block-rsv.c:#btrfs_release_global_block_rsv[btrfs] :6 33% 2:6 dmesg.kernel_BUG_at_fs/xfs/xfs_message.c <----- (1) > > Can you also run it with CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT=y set in the kernel config? got it, we will enable this config and rerun tests, for both this commit and parent. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8619279746419199711==" MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Oliver Sang To: lkp@lists.01.org Subject: Re: [btrfs] 62bd8124e2: WARNING:at_fs/btrfs/block-rsv.c:#btrfs_release_global_block_rsv[btrfs] Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2022 09:26:59 +0800 Message-ID: <20220610012659.GA6844@xsang-OptiPlex-9020> In-Reply-To: <20220609094652.GB3668047@falcondesktop> List-Id: --===============8619279746419199711== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable hi, Filipe Manana, On Thu, Jun 09, 2022 at 10:46:52AM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > = > I am unable to reproduce that on a 12 cores box. > I also don't see anything wrong that could lead to that by manual inspect= ion. > = > How easy is it for you to trigger it? we reproduced this upon 62bd8124e2 4 times out of 6 runs. but since the other 2 runs crash early due to other issues (below (1)), we cannot say they are clean. at the same time, the 6 runs for parent are clean. 7e2bb5b3f3bca223 62bd8124e2f17910fcd89568e50 ---------------- --------------------------- fail:runs %reproduction fail:runs | | | :6 67% 4:6 dmesg.RIP:btrfs_release_globa= l_block_rsv[btrfs] :6 67% 4:6 dmesg.WARNING:at_fs/btrfs/blo= ck-rsv.c:#btrfs_release_global_block_rsv[btrfs] :6 33% 2:6 dmesg.kernel_BUG_at_fs/xfs/xf= s_message.c <----- (1) > = > Can you also run it with CONFIG_BTRFS_ASSERT=3Dy set in the kernel config? got it, we will enable this config and rerun tests, for both this commit and parent. --===============8619279746419199711==--