* xfstests: device busy when umount
@ 2011-05-17 9:03 Yongqiang Yang
[not found] ` <BANLkTi=sFDKSB=fVOQs5s49E54T+V2iQJg@mail.gmail.com>
2011-05-17 14:32 ` Eric Sandeen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 11+ messages in thread
From: Yongqiang Yang @ 2011-05-17 9:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Ext4 Developers List; +Cc: Amir Goldstein
Hi,
I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have
falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc?
--
Best Wishes
Yongqiang Yang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread[parent not found: <BANLkTi=sFDKSB=fVOQs5s49E54T+V2iQJg@mail.gmail.com>]
[parent not found: <BANLkTi=dqUakbFw_k=FzDO99=9T33RzUsA@mail.gmail.com>]
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount [not found] ` <BANLkTi=dqUakbFw_k=FzDO99=9T33RzUsA@mail.gmail.com> @ 2011-05-17 11:49 ` Amir Goldstein 2011-05-17 11:55 ` Yongqiang Yang 0 siblings, 1 reply; 11+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2011-05-17 11:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yongqiang Yang; +Cc: Ext4 Developers List On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have >>> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? >> >> it might. Do you also get the device is busy errors?? > Yes, all of them have falloc operations. Interesting. I wonder why other people don't get these errors (or report them) Which distro are you using at the moment? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount 2011-05-17 11:49 ` Amir Goldstein @ 2011-05-17 11:55 ` Yongqiang Yang 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Yongqiang Yang @ 2011-05-17 11:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein; +Cc: Ext4 Developers List On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:49 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 7:36 PM, Amir Goldstein <amir73il@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:03 PM, Yongqiang Yang <xiaoqiangnk@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have >>>> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? >>> >>> it might. Do you also get the device is busy errors?? >> Yes, all of them have falloc operations. > > > Interesting. I wonder why other people don't get these errors (or report them) > Which distro are you using at the moment? I am using Debian distro. > -- Best Wishes Yongqiang Yang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount 2011-05-17 9:03 xfstests: device busy when umount Yongqiang Yang @ 2011-05-17 14:32 ` Eric Sandeen 2011-05-17 14:32 ` Eric Sandeen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2011-05-17 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yongqiang Yang; +Cc: Ext4 Developers List, Amir Goldstein, xfs-oss On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have > falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that have not terminated? What tests have these problems? -Eric ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount @ 2011-05-17 14:32 ` Eric Sandeen 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Eric Sandeen @ 2011-05-17 14:32 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Yongqiang Yang; +Cc: Ext4 Developers List, Amir Goldstein, xfs-oss On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: > Hi, > > I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have > falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that have not terminated? What tests have these problems? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount 2011-05-17 14:32 ` Eric Sandeen @ 2011-05-17 15:01 ` Amir Goldstein -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2011-05-17 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Yongqiang Yang, Ext4 Developers List, xfs-oss On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote: > On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have >> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? >> > > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. > > What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative > steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? I tried running lsof | grep $TEST_DIR before umount and I tried sleep 1 before umount and it didn't yield anything. > > Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that > have not terminated? > > What tests have these problems? for me 124 always fails to umount, and 198 and 213 sometimes fails to umount. > > -Eric > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount @ 2011-05-17 15:01 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2011-05-17 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Eric Sandeen; +Cc: Ext4 Developers List, Yongqiang Yang, xfs-oss On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote: > On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have >> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? >> > > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. > > What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative > steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? I tried running lsof | grep $TEST_DIR before umount and I tried sleep 1 before umount and it didn't yield anything. > > Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that > have not terminated? > > What tests have these problems? for me 124 always fails to umount, and 198 and 213 sometimes fails to umount. > > -Eric > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount 2011-05-17 15:01 ` Amir Goldstein @ 2011-05-18 6:31 ` Dave Chinner -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-05-18 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Eric Sandeen, Yongqiang Yang, Ext4 Developers List, xfs-oss On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 06:01:14PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have > >> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? <shrug> Perhaps a bit more detail about what you are testing, how you've set up xfstests, etc, and some analysis of the problem is in order first? > > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. > > > > What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative > > steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? > > I tried running lsof | grep $TEST_DIR before umount > and I tried sleep 1 before umount and it didn't yield anything. Which usually indicates that you've got some kind of reference counting problem preventing the filesystem from being unmounted. > > Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that > > have not terminated? > > > > What tests have these problems? > > for me 124 always fails to umount, and 198 and 213 sometimes fails to umount. What, exactly, are you testing on? test 124 uses XFS_IOC_RESVSP directly, not fallocate(), so all it is doing on a non-XFS filesystem is iterating a loop that writes a 1MB file, reads it back then unlinks it.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount @ 2011-05-18 6:31 ` Dave Chinner 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Dave Chinner @ 2011-05-18 6:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Amir Goldstein Cc: Eric Sandeen, Ext4 Developers List, Yongqiang Yang, xfs-oss On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 06:01:14PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have > >> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? <shrug> Perhaps a bit more detail about what you are testing, how you've set up xfstests, etc, and some analysis of the problem is in order first? > > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. > > > > What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative > > steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? > > I tried running lsof | grep $TEST_DIR before umount > and I tried sleep 1 before umount and it didn't yield anything. Which usually indicates that you've got some kind of reference counting problem preventing the filesystem from being unmounted. > > Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that > > have not terminated? > > > > What tests have these problems? > > for me 124 always fails to umount, and 198 and 213 sometimes fails to umount. What, exactly, are you testing on? test 124 uses XFS_IOC_RESVSP directly, not fallocate(), so all it is doing on a non-XFS filesystem is iterating a loop that writes a 1MB file, reads it back then unlinks it.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount 2011-05-18 6:31 ` Dave Chinner @ 2011-05-18 8:19 ` Amir Goldstein -1 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2011-05-18 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: Eric Sandeen, Yongqiang Yang, Ext4 Developers List, xfs-oss On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 06:01:14PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have >> >> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? > > <shrug> > > Perhaps a bit more detail about what you are testing, how you've set > up xfstests, etc, and some analysis of the problem is in order first? <shrug>^2 Let me make it simple: amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ uname -a Linux qalab 2.6.39-rc7+ #11 SMP Mon May 16 12:08:52 IDT 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ mount -t ext4 /dev/sdb1 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro,commit=0) /dev/sda5 on /mnt/test/ext4 type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ cat local.config export DISABLE_UDF_TEST=1 export TEST_DEV=/dev/sda5 export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test/ext4 export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sda8 export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/test/scratch amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ sudo ./check 124 FSTYP -- ext4 PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 qalab 2.6.39-rc7+ MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sda8 MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr /dev/sda8 /mnt/test/scratch 124 9s ... - output mismatch (see 124.out.bad) --- 124.out 2011-03-01 18:00:49.808338003 +0200 +++ 124.out.bad 2011-05-18 10:47:01.830998615 +0300 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ QA output created by 124 +umount: /mnt/test/scratch: device is busy. + (In some cases useful info about processes that use + the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1)) Ran: 124 Failures: 124 Failed 1 of 1 tests amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ mount -t ext4 /dev/sdb1 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro,commit=0) /dev/sda8 on /mnt/test/scratch type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) /dev/sda5 on /mnt/test/ext4 type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ sudo umount /mnt/test/scratch/ amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ mount -t ext4 /dev/sdb1 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro,commit=0) /dev/sda5 on /mnt/test/ext4 type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) I am not trying anything special. Running umount from command line after the test succeeds, so it must be some kind of race. As I said, I tried running lsof before umount in common.rc, but it detected nothing. Do you have any suggestions for further analysis? > >> > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. >> > >> > What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative >> > steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? >> >> I tried running lsof | grep $TEST_DIR before umount >> and I tried sleep 1 before umount and it didn't yield anything. > > Which usually indicates that you've got some kind of reference > counting problem preventing the filesystem from being unmounted. As I demonstrated, the filesystem *can* be unmounted. > >> > Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that >> > have not terminated? >> > >> > What tests have these problems? >> >> for me 124 always fails to umount, and 198 and 213 sometimes fails to umount. > > What, exactly, are you testing on? test 124 uses XFS_IOC_RESVSP > directly, not fallocate(), so all it is doing on a non-XFS > filesystem is iterating a loop that writes a 1MB file, reads it back > then unlinks it.... > Tell me about it... The machine was a clean install of Ubuntu 10.10, which was recently upgraded to Ubuntu 11.4, but this problem existed since the beginning. It is used for nothing but running tests and I only installed packages required (to my understanding) by xfstests. I just build xfstests from git (HEAD 30456902). The kernel is latest 2.6.39-rc7 with ext4 dev branch changed, but again, the problem existed with any previous/release kernel I tried. Cheers, Amir. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
* Re: xfstests: device busy when umount @ 2011-05-18 8:19 ` Amir Goldstein 0 siblings, 0 replies; 11+ messages in thread From: Amir Goldstein @ 2011-05-18 8:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Dave Chinner; +Cc: Eric Sandeen, Ext4 Developers List, Yongqiang Yang, xfs-oss On Wed, May 18, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com> wrote: > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 06:01:14PM +0300, Amir Goldstein wrote: >> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 5:32 PM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 5/17/11 4:03 AM, Yongqiang Yang wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I noticed that all tests which contain 'device busy' errors have >> >> falloc operations. Does the error have something to do with falloc? > > <shrug> > > Perhaps a bit more detail about what you are testing, how you've set > up xfstests, etc, and some analysis of the problem is in order first? <shrug>^2 Let me make it simple: amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ uname -a Linux qalab 2.6.39-rc7+ #11 SMP Mon May 16 12:08:52 IDT 2011 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ mount -t ext4 /dev/sdb1 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro,commit=0) /dev/sda5 on /mnt/test/ext4 type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ cat local.config export DISABLE_UDF_TEST=1 export TEST_DEV=/dev/sda5 export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test/ext4 export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sda8 export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/test/scratch amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ sudo ./check 124 FSTYP -- ext4 PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 qalab 2.6.39-rc7+ MKFS_OPTIONS -- /dev/sda8 MOUNT_OPTIONS -- -o acl,user_xattr /dev/sda8 /mnt/test/scratch 124 9s ... - output mismatch (see 124.out.bad) --- 124.out 2011-03-01 18:00:49.808338003 +0200 +++ 124.out.bad 2011-05-18 10:47:01.830998615 +0300 @@ -1 +1,4 @@ QA output created by 124 +umount: /mnt/test/scratch: device is busy. + (In some cases useful info about processes that use + the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1)) Ran: 124 Failures: 124 Failed 1 of 1 tests amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ mount -t ext4 /dev/sdb1 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro,commit=0) /dev/sda8 on /mnt/test/scratch type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) /dev/sda5 on /mnt/test/ext4 type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ sudo umount /mnt/test/scratch/ amir@qalab:~/xfstests$ mount -t ext4 /dev/sdb1 on / type ext4 (rw,errors=remount-ro,commit=0) /dev/sda5 on /mnt/test/ext4 type ext4 (rw,acl,user_xattr) I am not trying anything special. Running umount from command line after the test succeeds, so it must be some kind of race. As I said, I tried running lsof before umount in common.rc, but it detected nothing. Do you have any suggestions for further analysis? > >> > cc'ing xfs list since xfs devs maintain xfstests. >> > >> > What tests have "device busy" errors? What do the usual investigative >> > steps such as "lsof" and "fuser" tell you when this happens? >> >> I tried running lsof | grep $TEST_DIR before umount >> and I tried sleep 1 before umount and it didn't yield anything. > > Which usually indicates that you've got some kind of reference > counting problem preventing the filesystem from being unmounted. As I demonstrated, the filesystem *can* be unmounted. > >> > Are there loop devices that didn't get cleaned up, or processes that >> > have not terminated? >> > >> > What tests have these problems? >> >> for me 124 always fails to umount, and 198 and 213 sometimes fails to umount. > > What, exactly, are you testing on? test 124 uses XFS_IOC_RESVSP > directly, not fallocate(), so all it is doing on a non-XFS > filesystem is iterating a loop that writes a 1MB file, reads it back > then unlinks it.... > Tell me about it... The machine was a clean install of Ubuntu 10.10, which was recently upgraded to Ubuntu 11.4, but this problem existed since the beginning. It is used for nothing but running tests and I only installed packages required (to my understanding) by xfstests. I just build xfstests from git (HEAD 30456902). The kernel is latest 2.6.39-rc7 with ext4 dev branch changed, but again, the problem existed with any previous/release kernel I tried. Cheers, Amir. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 11+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2011-05-18 8:19 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2011-05-17 9:03 xfstests: device busy when umount Yongqiang Yang
[not found] ` <BANLkTi=sFDKSB=fVOQs5s49E54T+V2iQJg@mail.gmail.com>
[not found] ` <BANLkTi=dqUakbFw_k=FzDO99=9T33RzUsA@mail.gmail.com>
2011-05-17 11:49 ` Amir Goldstein
2011-05-17 11:55 ` Yongqiang Yang
2011-05-17 14:32 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-05-17 14:32 ` Eric Sandeen
2011-05-17 15:01 ` Amir Goldstein
2011-05-17 15:01 ` Amir Goldstein
2011-05-18 6:31 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-18 6:31 ` Dave Chinner
2011-05-18 8:19 ` Amir Goldstein
2011-05-18 8:19 ` Amir Goldstein
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.