From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.12.11/SuSE Linux 0.7) with ESMTP id mAIHWfcB025156 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 11:32:42 -0600 Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id C42401B27824 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:32:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from bombadil.infradead.org (bombadil.infradead.org [18.85.46.34]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 958cIjEPk700sPBR for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:32:41 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 08:38:44 -0500 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: assertion failed in xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag() Message-ID: <20081118133844.GA17894@infradead.org> References: <49221D83.6030406@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <49221D83.6030406@sgi.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Lachlan McIlroy Cc: xfs-oss On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 12:42:27PM +1100, Lachlan McIlroy wrote: > Hit this while running stress tests. Looks like an inode is tagged with > XFS_ICI_RECLAIM_TAG but not XFS_IRECLAIMABLE|XFS_IRECLAIM. I can't see > how that can happen. Looks it's xfs_iget_cache_hit when the inode is marked XFS_IRECLAIMABLE, in that case we first clear XFS_IRECLAIMABLE and then call __xfs_inode_clear_reclaim_tag, and all that under read_lock(&pag->pag_ici_lock) only, so no protection against the assert in xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag. _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs