Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new_inode+0x34/0x59()
From: Eric Sandeen <hidden>
Date: 2011-12-01 22:33:42
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2011-12-05 · Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new_inode+0x34/0x59() · Eric Sandeen <hidden>
- 2011-12-05 · Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new_inode+0x34/0x59() · Eric Sandeen <hidden>
- 2011-11-28 · Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new_inode+0x34/0x59() · Alexander Zhavnerchik <hidden>
- 2011-11-27 · Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new_inode+0x34/0x59() · Ted Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>
- 2011-11-27 · Re: WARNING: at fs/inode.c:884 unlock_new_inode+0x34/0x59() · Alex <hidden>
On 11/28/11 1:08 PM, Alex wrote:
On 11/28/2011 09:28 PM, Theodore Tso wrote:quoted
On Nov 28, 2011, at 1:12 PM, Alex wrote:quoted
Hi Ted, This is full dmesg with suspend to disk. This time no fs errors happened. And unfortunately I don't remember what kind of errors were there last time.OK, so you have a very large number of warnings, spanning over several seconds. That sounds to me like a memory corruption problem, as opposed to some kind of race that only happens for a symlink creation happening right during the suspend/resume. I can fix the warning and arrange to print more debugging information so that if this happens again, we get more information, but if you can't reproduce it, I'm not sure there's much more I can do for now. Regards, -- TedYes I can reproduce this, it happens after every s2disk.
And FYI a few other users are hitting it, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=744275 Several of the bugs dup'd to that bug are from distinct users. -Eric