[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS hung on kernel

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS hung on kernel
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:33:20 +1000
Cc: Ilia Mirkin <imirkin@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20100718045702.GB6282@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <AANLkTilX3l8TbUztLStj_u9OqOZnBrsNQxmeV4DuBmYJ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20100718012033.GA18888@dastard> <20100718045702.GB6282@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:57:02AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:20:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > So, back to the situation with the WARN_ON(). You're running
> > applications that are doing something that:
> > 
> >     a) is not supported;
> >     b) compromises data integrity guarantees;
> >     c) is not reliably reported; and
> >     d) might be causing hangs
> > 
> > Right now I'm not particularly inclined to dig into this further;
> > it's obvious the applications are doing something that is not
> > supported (by XFS or the generic page cache code), so this is the
> > first thing you really need to care about getting fixed if you value
> > your backups...
> While it's slightly crazy it's also a pretty easy way for users to shoot
> themselve in their feet.  Unlike the generic filesystems with their
> simplistic i_mutex locking we have a way to assure this works properly
> in XFS with the shared/exclusive iolock, so I'm willing to look into
> this further.

Sorry, that wasn't paticularly clear - What I was trying to say is
that I'm not really interested in solving all the generic
buffered/direct IO coherency issues. I agree that it should not
hang, so we do need to find out why it hung....


Dave Chinner

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