From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id n9J1FfVH016179 for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 20:15:41 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id BAEA71526C for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail13.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.98]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id xJQJW19X6iRv8XCb for ; Sun, 18 Oct 2009 18:17:13 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2009 12:17:10 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: 2.6.31 xfs_fs_destroy_inode: cannot reclaim Message-ID: <20091019011710.GP9464@discord.disaster> References: <20090930124104.GA7463@infradead.org> <4AC60D27.9060703@news-service.com> <20091005214348.GA15448@infradead.org> <4ACB080D.3010708@news-service.com> <20091007011926.GB32032@infradead.org> <4AD18C8D.90808@news-service.com> <20091012233854.GA29446@infradead.org> <89c4f90c0910150806g49c64037re550b478a7cf85e@mail.gmail.com> <20091018235910.GA30045@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20091018235910.GA30045@infradead.org> 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: Christoph Hellwig Cc: Patrick Schreurs , Tommy van Leeuwen , Bas Couwenberg , XFS List On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 07:59:10PM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 05:06:57PM +0200, Tommy van Leeuwen wrote: > > > Thanks. ?The patch below should fix the inode reclaim race that could > > > lead to the double free you're seeing. ?To be applied ontop of all > > > the other patches I sent you. > > > > Hi Christoph, > > > > Here are 2 more crashes with this patch applied, both having xfs_debug > > on and showing different traces (not inode reclaim related?). Hope > > it's usefull. > > Can't make too much sense of it, but the dir2 is something you reported > earlier already. We must be stomping over inodes somewhere, but I'm > not too sure where exactly. Can you try throwing the patch below ontop > of your stack? It fixes an area where we could theoretically corrupt > inode state. > > Index: xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c > =================================================================== > --- xfs.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c 2009-10-16 22:54:41.513254291 +0200 > +++ xfs/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_sync.c 2009-10-16 22:57:10.451256293 +0200 > @@ -180,6 +180,11 @@ xfs_sync_inode_valid( > return EFSCORRUPTED; > } > > + if (xfs_iflags_test(ip, XFS_INEW | XFS_IRECLAIMABLE | XFS_IRECLAIM)) { > + read_unlock(&pag->pag_ici_lock); > + return ENOENT; > + } This needs an IRELE(ip) here, doesn't it? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs