On 4/28/14, 3:54 PM, Dave Chinner 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, 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().
>> [ 3663.361709] sfsuspend-par D ffff88042f0b4540 0 3981 3947
>> [ 3663.394472] Call Trace:
>> [ 3663.397199] [<ffffffff815f1889>] schedule+0x29/0x70
>> [ 3663.402743] [<ffffffffa01feda5>] xlog_cil_force_lsn+0x185/0x1a0 [xfs]
>> [ 3663.416249] [<ffffffffa01fd3af>] _xfs_log_force_lsn+0x6f/0x2f0 [xfs]
>> [ 3663.429271] [<ffffffffa01a339d>] xfs_dir_fsync+0x7d/0xe0 [xfs]
>> [ 3663.435873] [<ffffffff811df8c5>] do_fsync+0x65/0xa0
>> [ 3663.441408] [<ffffffff811dfbc0>] SyS_fsync+0x10/0x20
>> [ 3663.447043] [<ffffffff815fc7d9>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> Wow, I believe it's taken this long for us to notice that we can't
> break out of xlog_cil_force_lsn() if we fail on xlog_write()
> from a CIL push.
> I'd say that xlog_cil_force_lsn() needs log shutdown checks before
> it goes to sleep in xlog_wait()....
>> Reported-by: Boris Ranto <branto@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> NB: While I've not asked Boris to test this yet, it seems
>> clear (?) that dir_fsync should behave the same as
>> file_fsync() in the face of a shut-down fs.
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> index 4c749ab..2b94362 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c
>> @@ -146,6 +146,9 @@ xfs_dir_fsync(
>> + if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp))
>> + return -XFS_ERROR(EIO);
> That won't hurt, but it won't fix the problem.
So, you did solve the problem properly I guess, in
Author: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed May 7 08:05:50 2014 +1000
xfs: don't sleep in xlog_cil_force_lsn on shutdown
so thanks. :) Should my patch still go in, to be consistent
with file_fsync() paths?