From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
Subject: Re: xfstests 073 regression
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2011 20:16:01 +0800
Message-ID: <20110802121601.GA13061@localhost>
References: <20110731151014.GA23106@localhost>
 <20110731234749.GQ5404@dastard>
 <CA+55aFzkb58Gtzgpd3oQgXekpg4APN6jDLNCh=CAMQ0zwyE4kg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801012813.GR5404@dastard>
 <CA+55aFwtfUeUn=MuqSEyPiPeC5=k2xK2ULd9-5ShQAJ=4T0CvQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20110801020951.GA12870@dastard>
 <20110801112330.GA27190@infradead.org>
 <20110801165242.GA18802@infradead.org>
 <20110802114428.GA6014@localhost>
 <20110802120445.GF12870@dastard>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
	Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Return-path: <linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mga03.intel.com ([143.182.124.21]:40926 "EHLO mga03.intel.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754226Ab1HBMQS (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Tue, 2 Aug 2011 08:16:18 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20110802120445.GF12870@dastard>
Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org>

On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 08:04:45PM +0800, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 07:44:28PM +0800, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 02, 2011 at 12:52:42AM +0800, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > wb_check_background_flush is indeed what we're hitting.
> > 
> > That means s_umount is NOT held by another queued writeback work.
> 
> Right. We already kind of knew that was ocurring because there's
> a remount,ro going on.

Yes, and even better if it can be confirmed with a full sysrq-t trace.

> > 
> > > See the trace output using a patch inspired by Curt's below:
> > > 
> > > # tracer: nop
> > > #
> > > #           TASK-PID    CPU#    TIMESTAMP  FUNCTION
> > > #              | |       |          |         |
> > >            <...>-4279  [000]   113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush
> > >            <...>-4279  [000]   113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush
> > >            <...>-4279  [000]   113.034052: writeback_grab_super_failed: bdi 7:0: sb_dev 0:0 nr_pages=9223372036854775807 sync_mode=0 kupdate=0 range_cyclic=1 background=1 reason=wb_check_background_flush
> > 
> > What's that bdi 7:0? And sb_dev=0:0, nr_pages=9223372036854775807=0x7fffffffffffffff.
> > 
> > All are indicating some special bdi/inode.
> 
> #define LOOP_MAJOR 7
> 
> It's a loop device. xfstests uses them quite a lot.

Yeah, it is.

> Maybe it would be a good idea to run xfstests on an xfs filesystem
> in your regular writeback testing cycle to get decent coverage of
> this case?

I've run xfstests case 073 on two of my boxes, however still cannot reproduce
the problem. This is the script I used, anything wrong with it?

        #!/bin/sh

        export TEST_DEV=/dev/sda5
        export TEST_DIR=/mnt/test

        export SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/sda6
        export SCRATCH_MNT=/mnt/scratch

        mount $TEST_DEV $TEST_DIR

        ./check 073

And the interesting thing is, that test case always fails in one box
and succeed in another.

Thanks,
Fengguang