Bug 818087
Summary: | WARNING: at fs/dquot.c:814 dquot_claim_reserved_space() in dmesg | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 | Reporter: | Magnus Morén <magnus.moren> |
Component: | kernel | Assignee: | Red Hat Kernel Manager <kernel-mgr> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Petr Beňas <pbenas> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | urgent | ||
Version: | 5.8 | CC: | dhoward, eguan, esandeen, jkalliya, jwest, ltroan, moshiro, pbenas, pstehlik, rwheeler, yoguma |
Target Milestone: | rc | Keywords: | ZStream |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-01-08 04:31:54 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 847326 |
Description
Magnus Morén
2012-05-02 07:53:41 UTC
(In reply to comment #0) > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. # mkfs.ext4 /dev/mapper/disk1 > 2. # tune2fs -c 0 -i 0 -m 0 /dev/mapper/disk1 > 3. Enable user quota Can you be a little more specific on 3) ? There must be a mount command in there somewhere, and a quota check possibly ... at what point is the mount exposed to users, and how (samba, nfs, etc?) Thanks, -Eric # grep /dev/mapper/disk1 /etc/fstab /dev/mapper/disk1 /home/stud1 ext4 defaults,usrquota,nobarrier,_netdev 0 0 File data is exposed to users by: samba3x and NFS # rpm -qa|grep samba samba3x-common-3.5.10-0.109.el5_8 samba3x-winbind-3.5.10-0.109.el5_8 samba3x-winbind-3.5.10-0.109.el5_8 samba3x-3.5.10-0.109.el5_8 Now when I revisit my installation notes I realize that I copied the aquota.user file from the old SAN-disk (ext3 based) the the new SAN-disk (ext4). Can this be the cause of the problem? # cp <src>/aquota.user <dst>/aquota.user ;copy the quota-db # quotacheck -vu <dst> ;Update the quota-db on an empty fs # quotaon -vu <dst> ;activate quota after this I copied all data using rsync (with samba and NFS service stopped) # rsync -avH --delete --exclude=/aquota.user --exclude=/lost+found /home/stud1/ /new/home/stud1/ Just so I don't have to infer anything, can you give me explicit, step-by-step details from mkfs, through mount, with any quota and/or samba/nfs operations, up to rsync, and finally whatever led to the message, as well as you can? I don't think copying aquota.user is a problem, but I'll have to give that a little more thought. - Create fs and enable quota # yum install e4fsprogs # mkfs.ext4 /dev/mapper/stud1 # tune4fs -c 0 -i 0 -m 0 /dev/mapper/stud1 # mount /new/home/stud1 # cp /home/stud1/aquota.user /new/home/stud1/ # quotacheck -vu /new/home/stud1 # quotaon -vu /new/home/stud1 then # rsync ... then # /etc/init.d/smb start # /etc/init.s/nfs start - /etc/fstab - See above - /etc/exports /home/stud some*.xx.se(rw) other*.xx.se(rw) more*.xx.se(rw,no_root_squash) /home/stud1 some*.xx.se(rw) other*.xx.se(rw) more*.xx.se(rw,no_root_squash) /etc/samba/smb.conf [global] server string = Student home file server workgroup = XX security = ADS realm = XX.SE interfaces = eth0 lo bind interfaces only = yes name resolve order = host smb ports = 445 socket options = TCP_NODELAY log level = 1 log file = /var/log/samba/%m.log max log size = 300 local master = no preferred master = no domain master = no load printers = no printcap name = /dev/null [homes] comment = Home Folder browseable = no writable = yes create mask = 0600 directory mask = 0700 Ok, there are still a couple of upstream commits that are needed to resolve this, I think - they address cases where delayed writes happen before quota is enabled. Can either reporter confirm or deny that there is a chance for IO to happen before quota is enabled on the filesystem in their usecase? I do not really know exactly what you are asking... 1) I mount the file system at boot from /etc/fstab (see #2 above). 2) The NFS- and SMB-services are started manually after boot. 3) The volume is accessed via iSCSI + multipath from a Compellent SAN. No IO is performed before quota is enabled (as far as I can tell). This request was evaluated by Red Hat Product Management for inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release. Product Management has requested further review of this request by Red Hat Engineering, for potential inclusion in a Red Hat Enterprise Linux release for currently deployed products. This request is not yet committed for inclusion in a release. Magnus, there are a couple upstream patches that should take care of this. This can be tested/demonstrated with something like: #!/bin/bash DEV=/dev/null # XXX CHANGEME MNT=/mnt/test # XXX CHANGEME umount $DEV mkfs.ext4 $DEV mount $DEV $MNT -oquota quotacheck $MNT umount $DEV mount $DEV $MNT -oquota dd if=/dev/zero of=$MNT/foo bs=1M count=1 quotaon $MNT dd if=/dev/zero of=$MNT/foo seek=1 bs=1M count=1 sync dmesg | tail in the failing case you'll see the traceback from the warning Reproduced in kernel-2.6.18-323.el5 and verified in kernel-2.6.18-335.el5. > Please provide test package? Our partner is willing to test the fix. I placed what didn't exceed the "quota" on my people.page from the build performed by Eric S. on 8/15. It's at http://people.redhat.com/ltroan/fixes/.818087/ and includes src as well as select x86 and x86_64 kernel images. Please test and report results in your Customer Portal case or directly here in the bugzilla. I will look at the reproducer. However, this bug was specifically opened for the warning messages which arises from a mismatch of reserved and claimed quota space. If that is fixed, this bug will be closed. If you have discovered a new quota-related problem, we will need a new bug to track that. (This behavior may be related to delayed allocation, and there is some potential mismatch in limits & actual use, but what you show above is more of an overrun than I would expect). In any case, I suggest opening a new bug for this other problem. Thanks, -Eric For what it's worth, I can't reproduce the 4% over-allocation result above on my test box. I ran the reproducer 5 times, each with 10 loops, and did not see the error. It would be good to know whether or not it looks like a regression on the partner's box. -Eric Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2013-0006.html |