Bug#615998: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Repeatable "kernel BUG at fs/jbd2/commit.c:534" from Postfix on ext4
- To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com>
- Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>, "Moffett, Kyle D" <Kyle.D.Moffett@boeing.com>, Sean Ryle <seanbo@gmail.com>, "Ted Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>, "615998@bugs.debian.org" <615998@bugs.debian.org>, "linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org" <linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org>, Sachin Sant <sachinp@in.ibm.com>, "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
- Subject: Bug#615998: linux-image-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Repeatable "kernel BUG at fs/jbd2/commit.c:534" from Postfix on ext4
- From: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2011 14:57:05 +0300
- Message-id: <[🔎] BANLkTi=UrCQSVHGHN6ADVcXF8LMbPtp7Xw@mail.gmail.com>
- Reply-to: Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com>, 615998@bugs.debian.org
- In-reply-to: <[🔎] alpine.LFD.2.00.1106271312310.3845@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
- References: <15E8241A-37A0-4438-849E-A157A376C7F1@boeing.com> <8658F8EE-A52D-4405-A1F3-C0247AB3EA6D@boeing.com> <26AE8923-4DEA-43FF-8F79-1D5AA665A344@boeing.com> <20110405230538.GH2832@thunk.org> <FD93E462-D97B-411B-BF09-9A64670AC5C2@boeing.com> <[🔎] AF621113-8320-4973-A88A-1FC048EA4293@boeing.com> <[🔎] BANLkTi=5BLA07tvbv3PFcZ0cc8FmBtg+UA@mail.gmail.com> <[🔎] 404FD5CC-8F27-4336-B7D4-10675C53A588@boeing.com> <[🔎] 20110624134659.GB26380@quack.suse.cz> <[🔎] 2F80BF45-28FA-46D3-9A28-CA9416DC5813@boeing.com> <[🔎] 20110624200231.GA32176@quack.suse.cz> <[🔎] alpine.LFD.2.00.1106271312310.3845@dhcp-27-109.brq.redhat.com>
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 2:16 PM, Lukas Czerner <lczerner@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Jun 2011, Jan Kara wrote:
>
>> On Fri 24-06-11 11:03:52, Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
>> > On Jun 24, 2011, at 09:46, Jan Kara wrote:
>> > > On Thu 23-06-11 16:19:08, Moffett, Kyle D wrote:
>> > >> Besides which, line 534 in the Debian 2.6.32 kernel I am using is this
>> > >> one:
>> > >>
>> > >> J_ASSERT(commit_transaction->t_nr_buffers <=
>> > >> commit_transaction->t_outstanding_credits);
>> > >
>> > > Hmm, OK, so we've used more metadata buffers than we told JBD2 to
>> > > reserve. I suppose you are not using data=journal mode and the filesystem
>> > > was created as ext4 (i.e. not converted from ext3), right? Are you using
>> > > quotas?
>> >
>> > The filesystem *is* using data=journal mode. If I switch to data=ordered
>> > or data=writeback, the problem goes away.
>> Ah, OK. Then bug https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=34642 is
>> probably ext3 incarnation of the same problem and it seems it's still
>> present even in the current kernel - that ext3 assertion triggered even
>> with 2.6.39 kernel. Frankly data=journal mode is far less tested than the
>> other two modes especially with ext4, so I'm not sure how good idea is to
>> use it in production.
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> if it is so (and it probably is, since I am not testing this mode as
> well:), it would be interesting to find out whether there are many users
> of this and if there are not, which is probably the case, deprecate it now,
> so we can remove it later. If we are openly suggesting not to use this,
> then there is probably no point in having this option in the first
> place.
>
> I vaguely remember that Ted said something about removing data=journal
> mode, but I do not remember details. Ted ?
>
I think Ted was plotting about removing data=ordered...
Amir.
Reply to: