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 pBCMtAa6126638 for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 16:55:10 -0600 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cuda.sgi.com (Spam Firewall) with ESMTP id E162A2B82CC for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:55:08 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id NtlhHNF9qtkbHWBY for ; Mon, 12 Dec 2011 14:55:08 -0800 (PST) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 09:55:06 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: [PATCH 01/12] repair: do not walk the unlinked inode list Message-ID: <20111212225506.GU14273@dastard> References: <20111202174619.179530033@bombadil.infradead.org> <20111202174741.091561992@bombadil.infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111202174741.091561992@bombadil.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: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 12:46:20PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > Stefan Pfetzing reported a bug where xfs_repair got stuck eating 100% CPU in > phase3. We track it down to a loop in the unlinked inode list, apparently > caused by memory corruption on an iSCSI target. > > I looked into tracking if we already saw a given unlinked inode, but given > that we keep walking even for inodes where we can't find an allocation btree > record that seems infeasible. On the other hand these inodes had their > final unlink and thus were dead even before the system went down. There > really is no point in adding them to the uncertain list and looking for > references to them later. > > So the simplest fix seems to be to simply remove the unlinked inode list > walk and just clear it - when we rebuild the inode allocation btrees these > will simply be marked free. > > Reported-by: Stefan Pfetzing > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig After further consideration, this is probably fine as all the unlinked inodes do get picked up elsewhere. Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs