[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: force log before unmount

To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: force log before unmount
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2012 09:37:07 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <4FE4D807.6030902@xxxxxxx>
References: <20120621192541.630212563@xxxxxxx> <20120621192600.936441949@xxxxxxx> <20120621235058.GF10673@dastard> <4FE4D807.6030902@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 03:39:35PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 06/21/12 18:50, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 02:25:42PM -0500, tinguely@xxxxxxx wrote:
> >>    xfs_ail_push_all_sync(mp->m_ail);
> >>    xfs_wait_buftarg(mp->m_ddev_targp);
> >
> >So, what is different about the superblock buffer? It's an uncached
> >buffer. What does that mean? It means that when xfs_wait_buftarg()
> >walks the LRU, it never finds the superblock buffer because uncached
> >buffers are never put on the LRU.
> >
> Thanks Dave. Just interested; are the uncached buffers kept off the
> LRU with an extra b_hold reference?

No, they take the uncached path through xfs_buf_rele() which avoids
putting them on the LRU. i.e:

 828 void
 829 xfs_buf_rele(
 830         xfs_buf_t               *bp)
 831 {
 832         struct xfs_perag        *pag = bp->b_pag;
 834         trace_xfs_buf_rele(bp, _RET_IP_);
 836         if (!pag) {
 837                 ASSERT(list_empty(&bp->b_lru));
 838                 ASSERT(RB_EMPTY_NODE(&bp->b_rbnode));
 839                 if (atomic_dec_and_test(&bp->b_hold))
 840                         xfs_buf_free(bp);
 841                 return;
 842         }

This first !pag path....

> >Hence, when xfs_ail_push_all_sync() triggers an async write of the
> >superblock, nobody ever waits for it to complete. Hence the log and
> >AIL are torn down, and when the IO completes it goes to remove it
> >from the AIL (which succeeds) and then move the log tail because it
> >was the only item in the AIL, it goes kaboom.
> >
> >So the root cause is that we are not waiting for the superblock IO
> >to complete i.e. it's not at all related to the xfs_sync_worker(), log
> >forces, etc. What we really need to do is after the
> >xfs_log_sbcount() call is write the superblock synchronously, and we
> >can do that in xfs_log_sbcount() because all the callers of
> >xfs_log_sbcount() have this same problem of not waiting for the SB
> >to be written correctly. i.e. add the guts of xfs_sync_fsdata() to
> >xfs_log_sbcount()....
> I did not expect the sync worker was the cause. Ben's patch is not even
> in at least one of the crashes. I thought it would be good thing to have
> the sync worker idle by the time we write the unmount record in the log.

I guess it's possible it might race with writing back the
superblock, but I think that we need to solve this problem once and
for all rather than moving the sync worker shutdown every time we
find a problem. I think part of that needs to be handled by the log
itself given that really all the sync worker is doing is trying to
idle the log....


Dave Chinner

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