From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id o6INURRL172334 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 18:30:27 -0500 Received: from mail.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id 0E53C1225E18 for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.internode.on.net (bld-mail16.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.101]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id 3kcyRfBbbvIu9vVB for ; Sun, 18 Jul 2010 16:39:57 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 09:33:20 +1000 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: XFS hung on 2.6.33.3 kernel Message-ID: <20100718233320.GB32635@dastard> References: <20100718012033.GA18888@dastard> <20100718045702.GB6282@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20100718045702.GB6282@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: Ilia Mirkin , xfs@oss.sgi.com On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 12:57:02AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 11:20:33AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > So, back to the situation with the WARN_ON(). You're running > > applications that are doing something that: > > > > a) is not supported; > > b) compromises data integrity guarantees; > > c) is not reliably reported; and > > d) might be causing hangs > > > > Right now I'm not particularly inclined to dig into this further; > > it's obvious the applications are doing something that is not > > supported (by XFS or the generic page cache code), so this is the > > first thing you really need to care about getting fixed if you value > > your backups... > > While it's slightly crazy it's also a pretty easy way for users to shoot > themselve in their feet. Unlike the generic filesystems with their > simplistic i_mutex locking we have a way to assure this works properly > in XFS with the shared/exclusive iolock, so I'm willing to look into > this further. Sorry, that wasn't paticularly clear - What I was trying to say is that I'm not really interested in solving all the generic buffered/direct IO coherency issues. I agree that it should not hang, so we do need to find out why it hung.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs