[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#667434: lvcreate / lvremove snapshot under Xen causes Kernel OOPs



Hi Quintin,

Thanks for your report.

On Wed, 2012-04-04 at 13:54 +1200, Quintin Russ wrote:
> Package: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64
> Version: 2.6.32-39
> Severity: important
> 
> We have observed an issue when a Xen dom0 is removing a snapshot for a
> logical volume and another process comes along to create a snapshot
> for that same device (different names) causing the server to Kernel
> Ooops. According to my logs sometimes removing of the snapshot can
> pause or take a while contributing to the issue. Attempts to add
> locking code (using dotlockfile) have not so far been successful in
> mitigating this bug, but we are still exploring this option.
> 
> The nodes that are affected intermittently&  we have been unable to
> reproduce this issue in the lab (on either the same model of hardware
> or hardware that has crashed in production). From our logs we can see
> that every time this issue occurs one process has been removing the
> snapshot while another has been creating a snapshot shortly after
> (seconds normally). We are currently seeing about a 5% chance of a
> crash per month (assuming our nodes are equal).
> 
> This bug looks similar to a number of bugs that have already been
> filed related to this
> issue:http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=614400  A quick
> Google search shows many more (which have mostly been merged):
> https://www.google.co.nz/webhp?q=site%3Abugs.debian.org%20xen%
> 20snapshot%20kernel%20oops%20squeeze

Those issues were believed to be fixed in 2.6.32-34 and you are running
2.6.32-39 so either this is a different issue (perhaps with similar
symptoms) or the issue isn't really fixed. Either way I think we need to
see your kernel logs containing the actual oops in order to make any
progress.

Thanks,
Ian.

-- 
Ian Campbell
Current Noise: Cathedral - Carnival Bizarre

HOORAY, Ronald!!  Now YOU can marry LINDA RONSTADT too!!




Reply to: