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 A25747FA9 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:29:49 -0500 (CDT) Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda2.sgi.com [192.48.176.25]) by relay2.corp.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 81D32304062 for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:29:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sandeen.net (sandeen.net [63.231.237.45]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id vYUU3YmlWHjmn1uy for ; Fri, 12 Sep 2014 12:29:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <541349B1.1070007@sandeen.net> Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 14:29:53 -0500 From: Eric Sandeen MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: test for shut down fs in xfs_dir_fsync() References: <535E8344.2070209@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <535E8344.2070209@redhat.com> 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: Eric Sandeen , xfs-oss Cc: Boris Ranto On 4/28/14 11:35 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > Similar to xfs_file_fsync(), I think xfs_dir_fsync() needs > to test for a shut down fs, lest we go down paths we'll > never be able to complete; Boris reported that during some > stress tests he had threads stuck in xlog_cil_force_lsn > via xfs_dir_fsync(). (re-ping) So Dave, you fixed this with: So, you did solve the problem properly I guess, in commit ac983517ec5941da0c58cacdbad10a231dc4e001 Author: Dave Chinner Date: Wed May 7 08:05:50 2014 +1000 xfs: don't sleep in xlog_cil_force_lsn on shutdown But should my patch still go in, if only to be consistent with file_fsync() paths? -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs