xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: spurious -ENOSPC on XFS

To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: spurious -ENOSPC on XFS
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:43:47 -0500
In-reply-to: <20090122205913.GA30859@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901120509550.11089@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090113214949.GN8071@disturbed> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901132324070.16396@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090118173144.GA1999@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901201430250.4603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090120232422.GF10158@disturbed> <20090122205913.GA30859@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 03:59:13PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:24:22AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > Right, so you need to use internal xfs sync functions that don't
> > have these problems. That is:
> > 
> >     error = xfs_sync_inodes(ip->i_mount, SYNC_DELWRI|SYNC_WAIT);
> > 
> > will do a blocking flush of all the inodes without deadlocks occurring.
> > Then you can remove the 500ms wait.
> 
> I've given this a try with Eric's testcase from #724 in the oss bugzilla,
> but it's not enough yet.  I thinks that's because SYNC_WAIT is rather
> meaningless for data writeout, and we need SYNC_IOWAIT instead.  The
> patch below gets the testcase working for me:

Actually I still see failures happing sometimes.  I guess tha'ts because
our flush is still asynchronous due to the schedule_work..

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>