From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay1.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.111]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B95527F60 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 10:49:57 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda1.sgi.com [192.48.157.11]) by relay1.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FDA08F8064 for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 08:49:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id pnx3J2RWzH5g3guc for ; Wed, 28 May 2014 08:49:52 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 28 May 2014 11:49:27 -0400 From: Brian Foster Subject: Re: [PATCH xfs: tone down writepage/releasepage WARN_ONs Message-ID: <20140528154927.GD5567@bfoster.bfoster> References: <20140527103119.GA26420@infradead.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20140527103119.GA26420@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 Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Tue, May 27, 2014 at 03:31:19AM -0700, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > I recently ran into the issue fixed by > > "xfs: kill buffers over failed write ranges properly" > > which spams the log with lots of backtraces. Make debugging any issues > like that easier by using WARN_ON_ONCE in the writeback code. > > Signed-off-by: Christoph Hellwig > --- The change generally seems fine to me. IIRC, we had a point in time where these issues were prevalent and noisy. We also had a few lingering ones that were hard to reproduce. I do wonder whether this would make that situation difficult to reproduce. For example, running through an xfstests run where one test might reproduce randomly and suppress output from a subsequent, perhaps more frequent reproducer. Am I correct to assume that once fired, the warning wouldn't fire again before a reboot or module reload? Hmm, did we have asserts that covered these scenarios as well? Brian > fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 6 +++--- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > index d1b99b6..e32640e 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > @@ -975,7 +975,7 @@ xfs_vm_writepage( > * Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should > * never be called while in a filesystem transaction. > */ > - if (WARN_ON(current->flags & PF_FSTRANS)) > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_FSTRANS)) > goto redirty; > > /* Is this page beyond the end of the file? */ > @@ -1225,9 +1225,9 @@ xfs_vm_releasepage( > > xfs_count_page_state(page, &delalloc, &unwritten); > > - if (WARN_ON(delalloc)) > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(delalloc)) > return 0; > - if (WARN_ON(unwritten)) > + if (WARN_ON_ONCE(unwritten)) > return 0; > > return try_to_free_buffers(page); > -- > 1.7.10.4 > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@oss.sgi.com > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs