On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:57:13AM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > commit 40194ecc6d78327d98e66de3213db96ca0a31e6f
> > Author: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> > Date: Fri Dec 6 12:30:11 2013 -0800
> > xfs: reinstate the ilock in xfs_readdir
> > Although it was removed in commit 051e7cd44ab8, ilock needs to be taken
> > in
> > xfs_readdir because we might have to read the extent list in from disk.
> > This
> > keeps other threads from reading from or writing to the extent list
> > while it i
> > being read in and is still in a transitional state.
> > This has been associated with "Access to block zero" messages on
> > directories
> > with large numbers of extents resulting from excessive filesytem
> > fragmentation
> > as well as extent list corruption. Unfortunately no test case at this
> > point.
> > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Seems to match the behaviour being seen.
> > Alex, what type of inode is the one that is reporting the "access to
> > block zero" errors?
> I have just searched the relevant file system for this inode, but such
> inode was not found:(
> # find /export/XXX -mount -inum 1946454529
> did not find anything. Perhaps it got deleted since the incident.
It probably got cleared by xfs_repair because it was corrupt....