[PATCH 03/13] xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users

[Dave Chinner]

On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 08:16:59AM -0500, 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.

test 107 is not in the auto group. That means it is generally
unreliable as a regression test, so I don't run it. That said, I
don't see anything unusual in that test that would cause problems...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david at fromorbit.com