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 650C37F51 for ; Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:33:27 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2013 10:33:24 -0500 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] xfs: don't try to mark uncached buffers stale on error. Message-ID: <20130924153324.GF1935@sgi.com> References: <1380002476-18839-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1380002476-18839-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1380002476-18839-2-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.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: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Dave, On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 04:01:12PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > fsstress failed during a shutdown with the following assert: > > XFS: Assertion failed: xfs_buf_islocked(bp), file: fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c, line: 143 > ..... > xfs_buf_stale+0x3f/0xf0 > xfs_bioerror_relse+0x2d/0x90 > xfsbdstrat+0x51/0xa0 Here you're showing an assert reported through an xfsbdstrat codepath... > xfs_zero_remaining_bytes+0x1d1/0x2d0 > xfs_free_file_space+0x5d0/0x600 > xfs_change_file_space+0x251/0x3a0 > xfs_ioc_space+0xcc/0x130 > ..... > > xfs_zero_remaining_bytes() works with uncached buffers, and hence if > we are preventing IO due to a shutdown, we should not be marking it > stale as that is only for cached buffers. Instead, just mark it with > an error and make sure it gets to the caller. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner > --- > fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c | 31 +++++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > index 2634700..956685f 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c > @@ -1093,25 +1093,20 @@ xfs_bioerror_relse( > struct xfs_buf *bp) > { > int64_t fl = bp->b_flags; > + > /* > - * No need to wait until the buffer is unpinned. > - * We aren't flushing it. > - * > - * chunkhold expects B_DONE to be set, whether > - * we actually finish the I/O or not. We don't want to > - * change that interface. > + * No need to wait until the buffer is unpinned. We aren't flushing it. > */ > XFS_BUF_UNREAD(bp); > XFS_BUF_DONE(bp); > xfs_buf_stale(bp); > bp->b_iodone = NULL; > + > + /* > + * There's no reason to mark error for ASYNC buffers as there is no-one > + * waiting to collect the error. > + */ > if (!(fl & XBF_ASYNC)) { > - /* > - * Mark b_error and B_ERROR _both_. > - * Lot's of chunkcache code assumes that. > - * There's no reason to mark error for > - * ASYNC buffers. > - */ > xfs_buf_ioerror(bp, EIO); > complete(&bp->b_iowait); > } else { > @@ -1128,11 +1123,15 @@ xfs_bdstrat_cb( > if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(bp->b_target->bt_mount)) { > trace_xfs_bdstrat_shut(bp, _RET_IP_); > /* > - * Metadata write that didn't get logged but > - * written delayed anyway. These aren't associated > - * with a transaction, and can be ignored. > + * If this is a cached write, then it is likely to be a delayed > + * write metadata buffer that can be ignored because the > + * contents are logged. If it's an uncached buffer or a read > + * operation, then the caller will get the error through the > + * normal IO completion path. We can tell if the buffer is > + * cached or not by looking to see if the b_pag field is NULL or > + * not. > */ > - if (!bp->b_iodone && !XFS_BUF_ISREAD(bp)) > + if (!bp->b_iodone && !XFS_BUF_ISREAD(bp) && bp->b_pag) ...but it looks like your fix is in xfs_bdstrat_cb, which wouldn't have been involved in the stack you posted above. What am I missing? Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs