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 C09F6C433FE for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 17:01:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S229436AbiJJRBq (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 13:01:46 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:53050 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S229470AbiJJRBk (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 13:01:40 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1029.google.com (mail-pj1-x1029.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1029]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DF65066128 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1029.google.com with SMTP id p3-20020a17090a284300b0020a85fa3ffcso13614245pjf.2 for ; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xfr6H5O7vFRZ+/xImrbGMQVEpqVo4OWqQRkRP1dlzuw=; b=IDbzdUyE4Ipqn5WiyGLuKV1+0vVWDDPkDjDSqN/PDsMfXYHPPZ0ljKfjiGzojyNSrl F/B1erIfB9sGEKTrGSc+fGFo4ZnWxuA4Z+bn29zaaUY6BWBIFrqsz038ySGBeZ/u3H1n gSt+2A7pubYGmyQELYKpeErsOYj8032bqXGxsIPDND5SBAQEALPV7mBj9izCpApOD/jd NMha/kV4Ogpm/EvbgA/JyB76SSpLCsa3hk+VKktKuebA60WjJ7tFTVHbJz7EsTpGIh59 Pq/p9jKKKIFtTZJ9K2pg7gFSb5Vhe4boV94cY7XylFa0B2dP0xcUYESwC1OJ8RTQFLok DW7w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=xfr6H5O7vFRZ+/xImrbGMQVEpqVo4OWqQRkRP1dlzuw=; b=1sQpPldDTafeN/Ro36F7wQ3gI7ndcMMM2En7uDB2WsTg8h0YAxbQwYzYbkPJbS4npA SJbeg2luPuhPHxZONThkXG8ZQ9f2L9UAyJkNo/eDzDuiW+orNciahiQrWS7lc6hWIMCI Xjo/7StIW1WY9YuX4ZBDzlg5pULDvcGsct4YBWJPeBiMjgQkz//yttaiWirCod2DTxIk Xsi7Z4hAT2cINpkD+7Ug0cnhYs3qFZjKL2lhZb+awncQZ6FjfauvqECNDzaslJFqjthc AihTikuy14r97urtryx36qoFHJiKf8QRsakjW0sMIBFN8HqGKciHXH3DABBGntH6WX1J 9fNg== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf0Ir/p9U3OvXPqf14C4v+qxxGqeraBU/7tdsQH22sG9dHtLDWlK DoYE8G84AuzED0KG0F22jsd9Fncj0HY= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM71/Ad/ukN/dL4AEAJ7Ry8YhFQxAS1hfQ97XDWhXr35P1P4vWEBPk2B7indfaKPSAi4Be+ULw== X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:efc9:b0:183:88ed:d15e with SMTP id ja9-20020a170902efc900b0018388edd15emr29330plb.139.1665421299029; Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost ([2406:7400:63:f20b:f6ca:e236:f59f:8c18]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s23-20020a17090a1c1700b001fabcd994c1sm9386959pjs.9.2022.10.10.10.01.37 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 10 Oct 2022 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 22:31:33 +0530 From: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" To: Theodore Ts'o Cc: bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bug 216529] New: [fstests generic/048] BUG: Kernel NULL pointer dereference at 0x00000069, filemap_release_folio+0x88/0xb0 Message-ID: <20221010170133.ti2t26nu72tvcbxc@riteshh-domain> References: <20220927181049.jpk3b52ssmq326b5@riteshh-domain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20220927181049.jpk3b52ssmq326b5@riteshh-domain> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org On 22/09/27 11:40PM, Ritesh Harjani (IBM) wrote: > On 22/09/26 01:02AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 25, 2022 at 11:55:29AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@kernel.org wrote: > > > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=216529 > > > > > > > > > Hit a panic on ppc64le, by running generic/048 with 1k block size: > > > > Hmm, does this reproduce reliably for you? I test with a 1k block > > size on x86_64 as a proxy 4k block sizes on PPC64, where the blocksize > > < pagesize... and this isn't reproducing for me on x86, and I don't > > have access to a PPC64LE system. > > > > Ritesh, is this something you can take a look at it? Thanks! > > I was away for some personal work for last few days, but I am back to work from > today. Sure, I will take a look at this and will get back. > > I did give this test a couple of runs though, but wasn't able to reproduce it. > But let me try few more things along with more iterations. Will update > accordingly. I thought I had updated this. But I guess I forgot to update on this mail thread... I tested this for quite some time in a loop and also gave it a overnight run, but I couldn't hit this issue. I had kept low memory size guest, so that we could see more reclaim activity (which I also ensured by doing perf trace to see if we are going over that path or not while test was running). I am not sure whether this could be a timing issue or what. Maybe if you could share your defconfig, I could give a try with that on my setup once. -ritesh