From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay2.corp.sgi.com [137.38.102.29]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 876547F50 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 20:14:10 -0600 (CST) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB8B304032 for ; Wed, 9 Dec 2015 18:14:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net (ipmail05.adl6.internode.on.net [150.101.137.143]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id CVmjrKwVn1VOL0h0 for ; Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:14:03 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2015 13:13:43 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: handling device or resource busy errors. Message-ID: <20151210021343.GI19802@dastard> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: 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: Ed Peschko Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Dec 09, 2015 at 04:25:06PM -0800, Ed Peschko wrote: > All, > > we are 'getting device or resource busy' errors which we *know* are > spurious (lsof shows nothing, no multipath daemon, the partition that we > are trying to access was just created). Please show your working - it saves us having to guess at how you came to that conclusion. > So the working theory is that the futex in question is spurious, that > something didn't clean up after itself and we are stuck waiting for an > non-existent process to fix it. Sorry, what futex has anything to do with whether a block device can be opened or not? > And the force option doesn't work for some reason. So a couple of questions. > > 1. Why doesn't force work in this case? With parted and partx it does - > in the case of mkfs.xfs it is a fatal error. Because mkfs.xfs uses O_EXCL in it's open() call. If there are other active references to the block device, then we sure aren't going to overwrite anything on it. > 2. could an 'extra force' option - one which ignored the futex - be > added in cases of backwards compatibility? What futex? > 3. is there any way to list out what holds mutexes in the linux kernel > so we could try to root out the ultimate cause of the issue? lsof is > useless, as is dmesg and /var/log/messages. sysrq-l Does waiting a few seconds make the problem go away, what about running 'udevadm settle' before mkfs? Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs