* [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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).