From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS hung task in xfs_ail_push_all_sync() when unmounting FS after disk failure/recovery
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:56:03 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160324215603.GD11812@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160324165244.GA17555@redhat.com>
On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 05:52:44PM +0100, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> I can now reproduce it, or at least part of the problem.
>
> Regarding your question Dave, yes, it can be unmounted after I issue xfs_io shutdown
> command. But, if a umount is issued before that, then we can't find the
> mountpoint anymore.
>
> I'm not sure if I'm correct, but, what it looks like to me, as you already
> mentioned, is that we keep getting IO errors but we never actually shutdown
> the filesystem while doing async metadata writes.
*nod*
> I believe I've found the problem. So, I will try to explain it, so you guys
> can review and let me know if I'm right or not
>
> I was looking the code, and for me, looks like async retries are designed to
> keep retrying forever, and rely on some other part of the filesystem to actually
> shutdown it.
*nod*
[snip description of metadata IO error behaviour]
Yes, that is exactly how the code is expected to behave - in fact,
that's how it was originally designed to behave.
> Looks like, somebody already noticed it:
>
> /*
> ¦* If the write was asynchronous then no one will be looking for the
> ¦* error. Clear the error state and write the buffer out again.
> ¦*
> ¦* XXX: This helps against transient write errors, but we need to find
> ¦* a way to shut the filesystem down if the writes keep failing.
> ¦*
> ¦* In practice we'll shut the filesystem down soon as non-transient
> ¦* errors tend to affect the whole device and a failing log write
> ¦* will make us give up. But we really ought to do better here.
> ¦*/
>
>
> So, if I'm write in how we hit this problem, and IIRC, Dave's patchset for
> setting limits to IO errors can be slightly modified to fix this issue too, but,
The patchset I have doesn't need modification to fix this issue - it
has a patch specifically to address this, and it changes the default
behaviour to "fail async writes at unmount":
http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2015-08/msg00092.html
> the problem is that the user must set it BEFORE he tries to unmount the
> filesystem, otherwise it will get stuck here.
Yes, but that doesn't answer the big question: why don't the
periodic log forces that are failing with EIO cause a filesystem
shutdown? We issue a log force every 30s even during unmount, and a
failed log IO must cause the filesystem to shut down. So why aren't
these causing the filesystem to shutdown as we'd expect when the
device has been pulled?
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:[~2016-03-24 21:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 31+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-03-22 11:21 XFS hung task in xfs_ail_push_all_sync() when unmounting FS after disk failure/recovery Shyam Kaushik
2016-03-22 12:19 ` Brian Foster
2016-03-22 13:01 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-03-22 14:03 ` Brian Foster
2016-03-22 15:38 ` Carlos Maiolino
2016-03-22 15:56 ` Carlos Maiolino
2016-03-23 9:43 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-03-23 12:30 ` Brian Foster
2016-03-23 15:32 ` Carlos Maiolino
2016-03-23 22:37 ` Dave Chinner
2016-03-24 11:08 ` Carlos Maiolino
2016-03-24 16:52 ` Carlos Maiolino
2016-03-24 21:56 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2016-04-01 12:31 ` Carlos Maiolino
2016-03-23 9:52 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-03-24 13:38 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-08 10:51 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-08 13:16 ` Brian Foster
2016-04-08 13:35 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-08 14:31 ` Carlos Maiolino
2016-04-08 17:48 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-08 19:00 ` Brian Foster
2016-04-08 17:51 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-08 22:46 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-10 18:40 ` Alex Lyakas
2016-04-11 1:21 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-11 14:52 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-11 22:47 ` Dave Chinner
2016-04-12 5:20 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-12 6:59 ` Shyam Kaushik
2016-04-12 8:19 ` 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=20160324215603.GD11812@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.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