xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 03/13] xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 05 Sep 2012 09:34:05 -0500
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <504750CB.2090907@xxxxxxx>
References: <1346328017-2795-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1346328017-2795-4-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <504622C1.20201@xxxxxxx> <20120905043000.GE15292@dastard> <504750CB.2090907@xxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 09/05/12 08:16, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 09/04/12 23:30, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:48:17AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
On 08/30/12 07:00, Dave Chinner wrote:
- /*
- * We shouldn't write/force the log if we are in the mount/unmount
- * process or on a read only filesystem. The workqueue still needs
to be
- * active in both cases, however, because it is used for inode reclaim
- * during these times. Use the MS_ACTIVE flag to avoid doing anything
- * during mount. Doing work during unmount is avoided by calling
- * cancel_delayed_work_sync on this work queue before tearing down
- * the ail and the log in xfs_log_unmount.
- */
- if (!(mp->m_super->s_flags& MS_ACTIVE)&&
- !(mp->m_flags& XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY)) {
+ if (!(mp->m_flags& XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY)) {
/* dgc: errors ignored here */
if (mp->m_super->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN&&
xfs_log_need_covered(mp))
@@ -408,8 +398,7 @@ xfs_sync_worker(
else
xfs_log_force(mp, 0);

- /* start pushing all the metadata that is currently
- * dirty */
+ /* start pushing all the metadata that is currently dirty */
xfs_ail_push_all(mp->m_ail);
}


It appears that the removal of the MS_ACTIVE flag is causing the
"atomic_read(&bp->b_hold)> 0," ASSERT.

I must be being slow today - I don't see why that would cause any
problems. The worker is not started at the end of the mount process
after everything is set up (i.e. just before MS_ACTIVE is removed),
and the worker is stopped before anything is torn down. That should
effectively replicate what the MS_ACTIVE flag is providing in the
old code.

Can you explain in more detail what lead you to this conclusion?

Cheers,

Dave.

You are correct, it does not make sense, but with the
!(mp->m_super->s_flags & MS_ACTIVE)
test removed, test 107 causes the above assert on
different machines/architectures. Place the test in, the
assert does not happen.

I will see if I can get it to dump on the x86_32 machine.

--Mark.

Make that xfstest 179. The ASSERT happens right away. I have a dump from x86_32 machine. I will take a quick look at it.

--Mark.

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