xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: test for shut down fs in xfs_dir_fsync()

To: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: test for shut down fs in xfs_dir_fsync()
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:22:15 -0500
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Boris Ranto <branto@xxxxxxxxxx>, xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <535E8D67.3010504@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <535E8344.2070209@xxxxxxxxxx> <20140428164754.GA17472@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <535E8D67.3010504@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 04/28/14 12:18, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 4/28/14, 11:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:35:16AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote:
Similar to xfs_file_fsync(), I think xfs_dir_fsync() needs
to test for a shut down fs,

It probably should.

lest we go down paths we'll
never be able to complete; Boris reported that during some
stress tests he had threads stuck in xlog_cil_force_lsn
via xfs_dir_fsync().

But this could still happen if we get a shutdown coming in after that
test.

True... that looked a bit hairier to sort out.  :(

-Eric



Are the sync lsn look okay? Was there an error writing the iclog buffer?

xfs_do_force_shutdown() will also do a xlog_cil_force_lsn() via the xfs_log_force_umount if the log buffer write was not in error. That should be the same or later than this lsn.

--Mark.

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