From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from verein.lst.de ([213.95.11.211]:50859 "EHLO newverein.lst.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751797AbdBIH6n (ORCPT ); Thu, 9 Feb 2017 02:58:43 -0500 Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 08:58:41 +0100 From: Christoph Hellwig Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] xfs: allocate direct I/O COW blocks in iomap_begin Message-ID: <20170209075841.GA6578@lst.de> References: <20170206074738.13978-1-hch@lst.de> <20170206074738.13978-5-hch@lst.de> <20170207014149.GE12378@birch.djwong.org> <20170209072107.GA6134@lst.de> <20170209075322.GA6824@birch.djwong.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20170209075322.GA6824@birch.djwong.org> Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: List-Id: xfs To: "Darrick J. Wong" Cc: Christoph Hellwig , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 08, 2017 at 11:53:22PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > Testing isn't done yet, but xfs/222 seems to be blowing up at > ASSERT(!rwsem_is_locked(&inode->i_rwsem)) in xfs_super.c fairly > consistently with blocksize=1k. I haven't been able to reproduce it > quickly (i.e. without running the whole test suite) so I can't tell if > that's a side effect of something else blowing up or what. generic/300 > seems to blow up periodically and then blows the same assert on umount, > also in the 1k case. xfs/348 fuzzes the fs, causes "kernel memory > exposure!" BUGs and then asserts with the same i_rwsem thing. I'll take a look at the umount assert while you're asleep. 348 is a pretty new test, so I doubt it's a regrewssion. > (You'll note I didn't merge the duplicate "xfs: improve handling of busy > extents in the low-level allocator"; if you want that done, please let me > know.) Yes, it should be folded into the first patch of that name and descriptions. It contains the fixups that Brian requested.