public inbox for linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@redhat.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, 1 Apr 2016 08:31:06 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160401123106.GB44113@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20160324215603.GD11812@dastard>

On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 08:56:03AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> 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?
> 

Right, good point, I'll take a look on it

> Cheers,
> 
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@fromorbit.com
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xfs mailing list
> xfs@oss.sgi.com
> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

-- 
Carlos

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2016-04-01 12:31 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
2016-04-01 12:31                   ` Carlos Maiolino [this message]
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=20160401123106.GB44113@redhat.com \
    --to=cmaiolino@redhat.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