Re: [linux-next][XFS][trinity] WARNING: CPU: 32 PID: 31369 at fs/iomap.c:993

[Dave Chinner]

On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 05:00:58PM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> On 9/18/17 4:31 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 09:28:55AM -0600, Jens Axboe wrote:
> >> On 09/18/2017 09:27 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> >>> On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 08:26:05PM +0530, Abdul Haleem wrote:
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> A warning is triggered from:
> >>>>
> >>>> file fs/iomap.c in function iomap_dio_rw
> >>>>
> >>>>     if (ret)
> >>>>         goto out_free_dio;
> >>>>
> >>>>     ret = invalidate_inode_pages2_range(mapping,
> >>>>             start >> PAGE_SHIFT, end >> PAGE_SHIFT);
> >>>>>>  WARN_ON_ONCE(ret);
> >>>>     ret = 0;
> >>>>
> >>>>     inode_dio_begin(inode);
> >>>
> >>> This is expected and an indication of a problematic workload - which
> >>> may be triggered by a fuzzer.
> >>
> >> If it's expected, why don't we kill the WARN_ON_ONCE()? I get it all
> >> the time running xfstests as well.
> > 
> > Because when a user reports a data corruption, the only evidence we
> > have that they are running an app that does something stupid is this
> > warning in their syslogs.  Tracepoints are not useful for replacing
> > warnings about data corruption vectors being triggered.
> 
> Is the full WARN_ON spew really helpful to us, though?  Certainly
> the user has no idea what it means, and will come away terrified
> but none the wiser.
> 
> Would a more informative printk_once() still give us the evidence
> without the ZOMG I THINK I OOPSED that a WARN_ON produces?  Or do we 
> want/need the backtrace?

backtrace is actually useful - that's how I recently learnt that
splice now supports direct IO.....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx