Description of problem: Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 2.6.20-2925.11.fc7xen How reproducible: always Steps to Reproduce: 1. boot into xen0 (with or without xend running) 2. start a large rsync going either to or from affected box Actual results: rsync crashes in kernel space, following hypervisor calls sometimes system hangs, gets checked, reboots Expected results: no oopses Additional info: please see the two attached `dmesg`s, one with USB and one without. Apparently not the same problem as bug 190636... The local FS is on a single-physical-volume LVM set with no RAID. This problem does not occur under non-Xen kernels.
Created attachment 158607 [details] crash w/ usb
Created attachment 158608 [details] crash w/o usb
This sounds similar to bug 190636, although the stack trace is different. I tried to reproduce this one a few times, but unfortunately I only have a 10 Mbps hub to drive data through, so I don't seem to be able to push the network fast enough to see this.
I just tested it locally. I got a complete lockup, with a fatal error displayed on the console, no network response, and a quick reboot. However, I couldn't get a crash using / (ext3, raid1) as the target volume. It only happened when I tried another LVM, xfs volume.
This was a good excuse for me to get rid of my 10 Mbps hub and order a shiny new gigE switch, so in a few days I'll be able to test this again.
> I just tested it locally. By that, I meant that I was rsyncing from localhost to localhost, and it crashed.
change QA contact
(In reply to comment #4) > > However, I couldn't get a crash using / (ext3, raid1) as the target volume. > It only happened when I tried another LVM, xfs volume. I've noticed XFS is abusing the stack. Two functions are using more than 400 bytes in the stack, each, and many others are using more than 100 bytes. Unless there are XFS fixes for stack usage to be picked from the non-xen kernel, the only fix would be increasing the stack size until XFS stack usage improves.
Yes, these are stack overflows from xfs, plain and simple: do_IRQ: stack overflow: 460 F8 should be a bit better in that regard, if you'd like to test, but I'm still of the belief that if you stack up enough IO layers, 4k will be trouble for any filesystem. It's just that xfs does indeed have trouble a bit sooner. :)
This message is a reminder that Fedora 7 is nearing the end of life. Approximately 30 (thirty) days from now Fedora will stop maintaining and issuing updates for Fedora 7. It is Fedora's policy to close all bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 'version' of '7'. Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 7's end of life. Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 7 is end of life. If you would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it against a later version of Fedora please change the 'version' of this bug. If you are unable to change the version, please add a comment here and someone will do it for you. Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes bugs or makes them obsolete. If possible, it is recommended that you try the newest available Fedora distribution to see if your bug still exists. Please read the Release Notes for the newest Fedora distribution to make sure it will meet your needs: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/ The process we are following is described here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping
Fedora 7 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on June 13, 2008. Fedora 7 is no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug. If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version. Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.