From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/13] xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users
Date: Thu, 6 Sep 2012 10:46:07 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20120906004607.GN15292@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <504750CB.2090907@sgi.com>
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 08:16:59AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 09/04/12 23:30, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 04, 2012 at 10:48:17AM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> >>On 08/30/12 07:00, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >>>- /*
> >>>- * We shouldn't write/force the log if we are in the mount/unmount
> >>>- * process or on a read only filesystem. The workqueue still needs to be
> >>>- * active in both cases, however, because it is used for inode reclaim
> >>>- * during these times. Use the MS_ACTIVE flag to avoid doing anything
> >>>- * during mount. Doing work during unmount is avoided by calling
> >>>- * cancel_delayed_work_sync on this work queue before tearing down
> >>>- * the ail and the log in xfs_log_unmount.
> >>>- */
> >>>- if (!(mp->m_super->s_flags& MS_ACTIVE)&&
> >>>- !(mp->m_flags& XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY)) {
> >>>+ if (!(mp->m_flags& XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY)) {
> >>> /* dgc: errors ignored here */
> >>> if (mp->m_super->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN&&
> >>> xfs_log_need_covered(mp))
> >>>@@ -408,8 +398,7 @@ xfs_sync_worker(
> >>> else
> >>> xfs_log_force(mp, 0);
> >>>
> >>>- /* start pushing all the metadata that is currently
> >>>- * dirty */
> >>>+ /* start pushing all the metadata that is currently dirty */
> >>> xfs_ail_push_all(mp->m_ail);
> >>> }
> >>>
> >>
> >>It appears that the removal of the MS_ACTIVE flag is causing the
> >>"atomic_read(&bp->b_hold)> 0," ASSERT.
> >
> >I must be being slow today - I don't see why that would cause any
> >problems. The worker is not started at the end of the mount process
> >after everything is set up (i.e. just before MS_ACTIVE is removed),
> >and the worker is stopped before anything is torn down. That should
> >effectively replicate what the MS_ACTIVE flag is providing in the
> >old code.
> >
> >Can you explain in more detail what lead you to this conclusion?
> >
> >Cheers,
> >
> >Dave.
>
> You are correct, it does not make sense, but with the
> !(mp->m_super->s_flags & MS_ACTIVE)
> test removed, test 107 causes the above assert on
> different machines/architectures. Place the test in, the
> assert does not happen.
test 107 is not in the auto group. That means it is generally
unreliable as a regression test, so I don't run it. That said, I
don't see anything unusual in that test that would cause problems...
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-09-06 0:45 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 61+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-08-30 12:00 [PATCH V2 00/13] xfs: remove the xfssyncd mess Dave Chinner
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 01/13] xfs: xfs_syncd_stop must die Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:15 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 16:10 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 02/13] xfs: rename the xfs_syncd workqueue Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:17 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-03 3:09 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 03/13] xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users Dave Chinner
2012-09-04 15:48 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-05 4:30 ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-05 13:16 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-05 14:34 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-06 0:46 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-09-06 15:08 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-07 0:41 ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-11 21:25 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 04/13] xfs: don't run the sync work if the filesyste is read-only Dave Chinner
2012-09-04 16:13 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 05/13] xfs: sync work is now only periodic log work Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:23 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-03 3:36 ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-04 16:14 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-04 18:57 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-05 4:35 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 06/13] xfs: Bring some sanity to log unmounting Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:28 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 19:11 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 07/13] xfs: xfs_sync_data is redundant Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:24 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-03 6:08 ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-04 20:48 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-06 0:53 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 08/13] xfs: xfs_sync_fsdata " Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 20:59 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 09/13] xfs: move xfs_quiesce_attr() into xfs_super.c Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:27 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 21:03 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 10/13] xfs: xfs_quiesce_attr() should quiesce the log like unmount Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:29 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 21:04 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 11/13] xfs: rename xfs_sync.[ch] to xfs_icache.[ch] Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 21:06 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 12/13] xfs: move inode locking functions to xfs_inode.c Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:30 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 21:07 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:00 ` [PATCH 13/13] xfs: remove xfs_iget.c Dave Chinner
2012-09-01 23:31 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-04 21:11 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-08-30 12:15 ` [PATCH V2 00/13] xfs: remove the xfssyncd mess Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-08-30 22:51 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-31 6:18 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-08-31 8:42 ` Dave Chinner
2012-08-31 9:30 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2012-08-31 14:01 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-03 4:05 ` Dave Chinner
2012-09-04 0:13 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-09-25 9:26 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-09-25 9:35 ` Dave Chinner
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2012-08-30 10:57 [PATCH " Dave Chinner
2012-08-30 10:57 ` [PATCH 03/13] xfs: rationalise xfs_mount_wq users Dave Chinner
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20120906004607.GN15292@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=tinguely@sgi.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox