* [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot
@ 2020-09-12 4:20 Chris Ruehl
2020-09-12 6:19 ` Chris Ruehl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chris Ruehl @ 2020-09-12 4:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-f2fs-devel
Hi,
we encounter random crash on new installed partition at
first boot.
Kernel: 4.9.235
Kernel: 5.4.64 (blow)
f2fs-tools: 1.4.0
[ 1.520829] mmc1: new DDR MMC card at address 0001
[ 1.526223] mmcblk1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 7.28 GiB
[ 1.531037] mmcblk1boot0: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 1 4.00 MiB
[ 1.537244] mmcblk1boot1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 2 4.00 MiB
[ 1.543416] mmcblk1rpmb: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 3 4.00 MiB, chardev
(247:0)
[ 1.554445] mmcblk1: p1 p2
[ 1.572323] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Mismatch valid blocks 512 vs. 508
[ 1.578552] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Failed to initialize F2FS segment manager
(-117)
[ 1.586374] VFS: Cannot open root device "mmcblk1p2" or unknown-block(179,2):
error -117
[ 1.594496] Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are the
available partitions:
I reboot into the installation SDCard and run the fsck.f2fs with no errors
root@ba81ba8b6125:~# fsck.f2fs /dev/mmcblk1p2
Info: Segments per section = 1
Info: Sections per zone = 1
Info: sector size = 512
Info: total sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
Info: MKFS version
"Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP Sat
Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
Info: FSCK version
from "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
to "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
Info: superblock features = 0 :
Info: superblock encrypt level = 0, salt = 00000000000000000000000000000000
Info: total FS sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
Info: CKPT version = 14f987b7
Info: Checked valid nat_bits in checkpoint
Info: checkpoint state = 1c5 : trimmed nat_bits crc compacted_summary unmount
[FSCK] Unreachable nat entries [Ok..] [0x0]
[FSCK] SIT valid block bitmap checking [Ok..]
[FSCK] Hard link checking for regular file [Ok..] [0x7]
[FSCK] valid_block_count matching with CP [Ok..] [0x1c29f]
[FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (de lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
[FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (nat lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
[FSCK] valid_inode_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x5953]
[FSCK] free segment_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x625]
[FSCK] next block offset is free [Ok..]
[FSCK] fixing SIT types
[FSCK] other corrupted bugs [Ok..]
Done: 5.592724 secs
Regards
Chris
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot
2020-09-12 4:20 [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot Chris Ruehl
@ 2020-09-12 6:19 ` Chris Ruehl
2020-09-14 7:30 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chris Ruehl @ 2020-09-12 6:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-f2fs-devel
Update
On 12/9/2020 12:20 pm, Chris Ruehl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> we encounter random crash on new installed partition at
> first boot.
> Kernel: 4.9.235
> Kernel: 5.4.64 (blow)
> f2fs-tools: 1.4.0
>
> [ 1.520829] mmc1: new DDR MMC card at address 0001
>
> [ 1.526223] mmcblk1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 7.28 GiB
>
> [ 1.531037] mmcblk1boot0: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 1 4.00 MiB
>
> [ 1.537244] mmcblk1boot1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 2 4.00 MiB
>
> [ 1.543416] mmcblk1rpmb: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 3 4.00 MiB, chardev (247:0)
> [ 1.554445] mmcblk1: p1 p2
>
> [ 1.572323] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Mismatch valid blocks 512 vs. 508
>
> [ 1.578552] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Failed to initialize F2FS segment manager
> (-117)
> [ 1.586374] VFS: Cannot open root device "mmcblk1p2" or unknown-block(179,2):
> error -117
> [ 1.594496] Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are the
> available partitions:
>
> I reboot into the installation SDCard and run the fsck.f2fs with no errors
>
> root@ba81ba8b6125:~# fsck.f2fs /dev/mmcblk1p2
> Info: Segments per section = 1
> Info: Sections per zone = 1
> Info: sector size = 512
> Info: total sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
> Info: MKFS version
> "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP Sat
> Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
> Info: FSCK version
> from "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
> Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
> to "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
> Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
> Info: superblock features = 0 :
> Info: superblock encrypt level = 0, salt = 00000000000000000000000000000000
> Info: total FS sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
> Info: CKPT version = 14f987b7
> Info: Checked valid nat_bits in checkpoint
> Info: checkpoint state = 1c5 : trimmed nat_bits crc compacted_summary unmount
>
> [FSCK] Unreachable nat entries [Ok..] [0x0]
> [FSCK] SIT valid block bitmap checking [Ok..]
> [FSCK] Hard link checking for regular file [Ok..] [0x7]
> [FSCK] valid_block_count matching with CP [Ok..] [0x1c29f]
> [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (de lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
> [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (nat lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
> [FSCK] valid_inode_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x5953]
> [FSCK] free segment_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x625]
> [FSCK] next block offset is free [Ok..]
> [FSCK] fixing SIT types
> [FSCK] other corrupted bugs [Ok..]
>
> Done: 5.592724 secs
>
> Regards
> Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
CONFIG_HIMEM is not set
CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is set.
Problem not seen when set
CONFIG_PREEMPT
If that help to point to the bug.
-Chris
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot
2020-09-12 6:19 ` Chris Ruehl
@ 2020-09-14 7:30 ` Chao Yu
2020-09-14 7:38 ` Chris Ruehl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-09-14 7:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Ruehl, linux-f2fs-devel
Hi Chris,
On 2020/9/12 14:19, Chris Ruehl wrote:
> Update
> On 12/9/2020 12:20 pm, Chris Ruehl wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we encounter random crash on new installed partition at
>> first boot.
>> Kernel: 4.9.235
>> Kernel: 5.4.64 (blow)
You mean: on both 4.9 and 5.4, you will encounter the crash?
>> f2fs-tools: 1.4.0
>>
>> [ 1.520829] mmc1: new DDR MMC card at address 0001
>>
>> [ 1.526223] mmcblk1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 7.28 GiB
>>
>> [ 1.531037] mmcblk1boot0: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 1 4.00 MiB
>>
>> [ 1.537244] mmcblk1boot1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 2 4.00 MiB
>>
>> [ 1.543416] mmcblk1rpmb: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 3 4.00 MiB, chardev (247:0)
>> [ 1.554445] mmcblk1: p1 p2
>>
>> [ 1.572323] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Mismatch valid blocks 512 vs. 508
>>
>> [ 1.578552] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Failed to initialize F2FS segment manager
>> (-117)
>> [ 1.586374] VFS: Cannot open root device "mmcblk1p2" or unknown-block(179,2):
>> error -117
>> [ 1.594496] Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are the
>> available partitions:
>>
>> I reboot into the installation SDCard and run the fsck.f2fs with no errors
We can see that both f2fs kernel module and fsck.f2fs will check consistency
of SIT table, and I don't see any obvious difference in between them... :(
kernel-f2fs:
https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4.64/source/fs/f2fs/segment.h#L699
f2fs-tools:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs-tools.git/tree/fsck/mount.c#n2012
Could you please apply below patch to check which segment has inconsistent
blocks:
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
index 13ecd2c2c361..3599da395809 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
@@ -4380,6 +4380,7 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
unsigned int readed, start_blk = 0;
int err = 0;
block_t total_node_blocks = 0;
+ bool corrupted = false;
do {
readed = f2fs_ra_meta_pages(sbi, start_blk, BIO_MAX_PAGES,
@@ -4402,7 +4403,7 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
err = check_block_count(sbi, start, &sit);
if (err)
- return err;
+ corrupted = true;
seg_info_from_raw_sit(se, &sit);
if (IS_NODESEG(se->type))
total_node_blocks += se->valid_blocks;
@@ -4448,7 +4449,7 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
err = check_block_count(sbi, start, &sit);
if (err)
- break;
+ corrupted = true;
seg_info_from_raw_sit(se, &sit);
if (IS_NODESEG(se->type))
total_node_blocks += se->valid_blocks;
@@ -4477,6 +4478,9 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi)
err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
}
+ if (corrupted)
+ err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
+
return err;
}
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
index 47b888ad913b..af6fd623fb01 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
@@ -719,8 +719,14 @@ static inline int check_block_count(struct f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
} while (cur_pos < usable_blks_per_seg);
if (unlikely(GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) != valid_blocks)) {
- f2fs_err(sbi, "Mismatch valid blocks %d vs. %d",
- GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit), valid_blocks);
+ f2fs_err(sbi, "Mismatch valid blocks %d vs. %d in segno:%u",
+ segno, GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit), valid_blocks);
+ for (cur_pos = 0; cur_pos < SIT_VBLOCK_MAP_SIZE; cur_pos += 4)
+ f2fs_info(sbi, "%u %u %u %u",
+ raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos],
+ raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos + 1],
+ raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos + 2],
+ raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos + 3]);
set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
return -EFSCORRUPTED;
}
Thanks,
>>
>> root@ba81ba8b6125:~# fsck.f2fs /dev/mmcblk1p2
>> Info: Segments per section = 1
>> Info: Sections per zone = 1
>> Info: sector size = 512
>> Info: total sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
>> Info: MKFS version
>> "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP Sat
>> Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
>> Info: FSCK version
>> from "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
>> Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
>> to "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
>> Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
>> Info: superblock features = 0 :
>> Info: superblock encrypt level = 0, salt = 00000000000000000000000000000000
>> Info: total FS sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
>> Info: CKPT version = 14f987b7
>> Info: Checked valid nat_bits in checkpoint
>> Info: checkpoint state = 1c5 : trimmed nat_bits crc compacted_summary unmount
>>
>> [FSCK] Unreachable nat entries [Ok..] [0x0]
>> [FSCK] SIT valid block bitmap checking [Ok..]
>> [FSCK] Hard link checking for regular file [Ok..] [0x7]
>> [FSCK] valid_block_count matching with CP [Ok..] [0x1c29f]
>> [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (de lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
>> [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (nat lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
>> [FSCK] valid_inode_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x5953]
>> [FSCK] free segment_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x625]
>> [FSCK] next block offset is free [Ok..]
>> [FSCK] fixing SIT types
>> [FSCK] other corrupted bugs [Ok..]
>>
>> Done: 5.592724 secs
>>
>> Regards
>> Chris
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>
> CONFIG_HIMEM is not set
> CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is set.
>
> Problem not seen when set
> CONFIG_PREEMPT
>
> If that help to point to the bug.
>
> -Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot
2020-09-14 7:30 ` Chao Yu
@ 2020-09-14 7:38 ` Chris Ruehl
2020-09-14 7:55 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chris Ruehl @ 2020-09-14 7:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel
Hi Chao,
On 14/9/2020 3:30 pm, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 2020/9/12 14:19, Chris Ruehl wrote:
>> Update
>> On 12/9/2020 12:20 pm, Chris Ruehl wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> we encounter random crash on new installed partition at
>>> first boot.
>>> Kernel: 4.9.235
>>> Kernel: 5.4.64 (blow)
>
> You mean: on both 4.9 and 5.4, you will encounter the crash?
>
>>> f2fs-tools: 1.4.0
>>>
>>> [ 1.520829] mmc1: new DDR MMC card at address 0001
>>>
>>> [ 1.526223] mmcblk1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 7.28 GiB
>>>
>>> [ 1.531037] mmcblk1boot0: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 1 4.00 MiB
>>>
>>> [ 1.537244] mmcblk1boot1: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 2 4.00 MiB
>>>
>>> [ 1.543416] mmcblk1rpmb: mmc1:0001 DG4008 partition 3 4.00 MiB,
>>> chardev (247:0)
>>> [ 1.554445] mmcblk1: p1 p2
>>>
>>> [ 1.572323] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Mismatch valid blocks 512 vs. 508
>>>
>>> [ 1.578552] F2FS-fs (mmcblk1p2): Failed to initialize F2FS segment
>>> manager
>>> (-117)
>>> [ 1.586374] VFS: Cannot open root device "mmcblk1p2" or
>>> unknown-block(179,2):
>>> error -117
>>> [ 1.594496] Please append a correct "root=" boot option; here are the
>>> available partitions:
>>>
>>> I reboot into the installation SDCard and run the fsck.f2fs with no
>>> errors
>
> We can see that both f2fs kernel module and fsck.f2fs will check
> consistency
> of SIT table, and I don't see any obvious difference in between them... :(
>
> kernel-f2fs:
>
> https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.4.64/source/fs/f2fs/segment.h#L699
>
> f2fs-tools:
>
> https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/jaegeuk/f2fs-tools.git/tree/fsck/mount.c#n2012
>
>
> Could you please apply below patch to check which segment has inconsistent
> blocks:
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.c b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> index 13ecd2c2c361..3599da395809 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.c
> @@ -4380,6 +4380,7 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info
> *sbi)
> unsigned int readed, start_blk = 0;
> int err = 0;
> block_t total_node_blocks = 0;
> + bool corrupted = false;
>
> do {
> readed = f2fs_ra_meta_pages(sbi, start_blk, BIO_MAX_PAGES,
> @@ -4402,7 +4403,7 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info
> *sbi)
>
> err = check_block_count(sbi, start, &sit);
> if (err)
> - return err;
> + corrupted = true;
> seg_info_from_raw_sit(se, &sit);
> if (IS_NODESEG(se->type))
> total_node_blocks += se->valid_blocks;
> @@ -4448,7 +4449,7 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info
> *sbi)
>
> err = check_block_count(sbi, start, &sit);
> if (err)
> - break;
> + corrupted = true;
> seg_info_from_raw_sit(se, &sit);
> if (IS_NODESEG(se->type))
> total_node_blocks += se->valid_blocks;
> @@ -4477,6 +4478,9 @@ static int build_sit_entries(struct f2fs_sb_info
> *sbi)
> err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> }
>
> + if (corrupted)
> + err = -EFSCORRUPTED;
> +
> return err;
> }
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/segment.h b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> index 47b888ad913b..af6fd623fb01 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/segment.h
> @@ -719,8 +719,14 @@ static inline int check_block_count(struct
> f2fs_sb_info *sbi,
> } while (cur_pos < usable_blks_per_seg);
>
> if (unlikely(GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit) != valid_blocks)) {
> - f2fs_err(sbi, "Mismatch valid blocks %d vs. %d",
> - GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit), valid_blocks);
> + f2fs_err(sbi, "Mismatch valid blocks %d vs. %d in segno:%u",
> + segno, GET_SIT_VBLOCKS(raw_sit), valid_blocks);
> + for (cur_pos = 0; cur_pos < SIT_VBLOCK_MAP_SIZE; cur_pos += 4)
> + f2fs_info(sbi, "%u %u %u %u",
> + raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos],
> + raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos + 1],
> + raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos + 2],
> + raw_sit->valid_map[cur_pos + 3]);
> set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_NEED_FSCK);
> return -EFSCORRUPTED;
> }
>
> Thanks,
>
>>>
>>> root@ba81ba8b6125:~# fsck.f2fs /dev/mmcblk1p2
>>> Info: Segments per section = 1
>>> Info: Sections per zone = 1
>>> Info: sector size = 512
>>> Info: total sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
>>> Info: MKFS version
>>> "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian 8.3.0-2))
>>> #74 SMP Sat
>>> Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
>>> Info: FSCK version
>>> from "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian
>>> 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
>>> Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
>>> to "Linux version 5.4.64 (xxx) (gcc version 8.3.0 (Debian
>>> 8.3.0-2)) #74 SMP
>>> Sat Sep 12 10:56:24 HKT 2020"
>>> Info: superblock features = 0 :
>>> Info: superblock encrypt level = 0, salt =
>>> 00000000000000000000000000000000
>>> Info: total FS sectors = 7520000 (3671 MB)
>>> Info: CKPT version = 14f987b7
>>> Info: Checked valid nat_bits in checkpoint
>>> Info: checkpoint state = 1c5 : trimmed nat_bits crc
>>> compacted_summary unmount
>>>
>>> [FSCK] Unreachable nat entries [Ok..] [0x0]
>>> [FSCK] SIT valid block bitmap checking [Ok..]
>>> [FSCK] Hard link checking for regular file [Ok..] [0x7]
>>> [FSCK] valid_block_count matching with CP [Ok..] [0x1c29f]
>>> [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (de lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
>>> [FSCK] valid_node_count matching with CP (nat lookup) [Ok..] [0x596b]
>>> [FSCK] valid_inode_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x5953]
>>> [FSCK] free segment_count matched with CP [Ok..] [0x625]
>>> [FSCK] next block offset is free [Ok..]
>>> [FSCK] fixing SIT types
>>> [FSCK] other corrupted bugs [Ok..]
>>>
>>> Done: 5.592724 secs
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Chris
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>>
>> CONFIG_HIMEM is not set
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is set.../uboot.d/u-boot.imx-6dl2g
>>
>> Problem not seen when set
>> CONFIG_PREEMPT
>>
>> If that help to point to the bug.
>>
>> -Chris
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>>
I must say sorry for the noise, I checked the Ram and CPU, we have a bad
RAM which can't follow the 992Mhz and causes the problem, once limit the
CPU speed to 800Mhz the problem is gone. Both 4.9 & 5.4
Please consider this bug as false-positive.
Regards
Chris
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot
2020-09-14 7:38 ` Chris Ruehl
@ 2020-09-14 7:55 ` Chao Yu
2020-09-17 5:56 ` Chris Ruehl
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-09-14 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chris Ruehl, linux-f2fs-devel
Hi Chris,
On 2020/9/14 15:38, Chris Ruehl wrote:
> I must say sorry for the noise, I checked the Ram and CPU, we have a bad
> RAM which can't follow the 992Mhz and causes the problem, once limit the
> CPU speed to 800Mhz the problem is gone. Both 4.9 & 5.4
Okay, out of curiosity, the frequency 992Mhz has exceed the frequency limitation
of RAM?
>
> Please consider this bug as false-positive.
Alright, let us know if you have any issue on f2fs use.
Thanks,
>
>
> Regards
> Chris
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot
2020-09-14 7:55 ` Chao Yu
@ 2020-09-17 5:56 ` Chris Ruehl
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chris Ruehl @ 2020-09-17 5:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel
On 14/9/2020 3:55 pm, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> On 2020/9/14 15:38, Chris Ruehl wrote:
>> I must say sorry for the noise, I checked the Ram and CPU, we have a bad
>> RAM which can't follow the 992Mhz and causes the problem, once limit the
>> CPU speed to 800Mhz the problem is gone. Both 4.9 & 5.4
>
> Okay, out of curiosity, the frequency 992Mhz has exceed the frequency limitation
> of RAM?
Its a problem with the PCB, not the RAM and the frequency.
We take out the CPU for investigation and found some aging on the
balls and pads. Likely to much humidity.
>
>>
>> Please consider this bug as false-positive.
>
> Alright, let us know if you have any issue on f2fs use.
>
> Thanks,
we have new rollout on rk3399 with ddr4 and 8G eMMC 5.4 - 8 bit bus
tests run with 4.9 4.19 and 5.4 plus rt patch, no problems here.
>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Chris
>> .
>>
--
GTSYS Limited RFID Technology
9/F, Unit E, R07, Kwai Shing Industrial Building Phase 2,
42-46 Tai Lin Pai Road, Kwai Chung, N.T., Hong Kong
Tel (852) 9079 9521
Disclaimer: https://www.gtsys.com.hk/email/classified.html
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2020-09-17 5:57 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2020-09-12 4:20 [f2fs-dev] F2fs failed on fresh installation 1st boot Chris Ruehl
2020-09-12 6:19 ` Chris Ruehl
2020-09-14 7:30 ` Chao Yu
2020-09-14 7:38 ` Chris Ruehl
2020-09-14 7:55 ` Chao Yu
2020-09-17 5:56 ` Chris Ruehl
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.