From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EE8C9C2D0CD for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C44FF207FF for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:03:16 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="WC/BLmfQ" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726986AbfLQMDQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:03:16 -0500 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com ([207.211.31.120]:40860 "EHLO us-smtp-1.mimecast.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726608AbfLQMDQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:03:16 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1576584195; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=tD8dOME/4sWvD8hMnn32Hm7Actlpg4gWVP8R84BLjfA=; b=WC/BLmfQiAG3hS02f1uhlK6qvWHrJX2ADVnLzA4ig2mhzHgIjnWzVx4Z+wkVOqPK0q6rAY g4yibDNlCNobgzTUZcjViLAhkt1QvOnmktNGwD3Yqa9QsgYT5z6WqQa8Om2mvn4YoSKy+0 7OeyGLSwilfw8Q57EjyZ6gqQK66dBIs= Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-207-Gr_7FM5vNc-CB4HOR73Mdw-1; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:03:08 -0500 X-MC-Unique: Gr_7FM5vNc-CB4HOR73Mdw-1 Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBB9F1800D42; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from bfoster (dhcp-41-2.bos.redhat.com [10.18.41.2]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 626031000328; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 12:03:07 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 07:03:05 -0500 From: Brian Foster To: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org Cc: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [Bug 205833] fsfreeze blocks close(fd) on xfs sometimes Message-ID: <20191217120305.GD48778@bfoster> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.12.1 (2019-06-15) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:34:34AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote: > https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205833 > > --- Comment #2 from Stefan @dns2utf8 Schindler (kernel.org@estada.ch) --- > Hi Brian > > Thank you! Here is the stack of a blocked `tail 0.txt` process: > > cat /proc/276/stack > [<0>] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x18/0x30 > [<0>] __percpu_down_read+0x58/0x80 > [<0>] __sb_start_write+0x65/0x70 > [<0>] xfs_trans_alloc+0xec/0x130 [xfs] > [<0>] xfs_free_eofblocks+0x12a/0x1e0 [xfs] > [<0>] xfs_release+0x144/0x170 [xfs] > [<0>] xfs_file_release+0x15/0x20 [xfs] > [<0>] __fput+0xea/0x220 > [<0>] ____fput+0xe/0x10 > [<0>] task_work_run+0x9d/0xc0 > [<0>] ptrace_notify+0x84/0x90 > [<0>] tracehook_report_syscall_exit+0x90/0xd0 > [<0>] syscall_slow_exit_work+0x50/0xd0 > [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x12b/0x130 > [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x3d/0xa2 > [<0>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > Your explanation matches the behaviour I see on the system. > > If there was a patch, do you think it would get backported or just stay in > mainline and ship with the regular releases? > There was a patch, but it was RFC and hadn't been merged because IIRC more investigation/testing was required to evaluate side effects. For reference, the last post I see is the one below. In particular, patch 3 bypasses EOF block truncation from read-only file descriptors (I believe the file writer task would still block). https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=154951612101291&w=2 Based on the stack above, note that this is (at least for the time being) expected behavior on XFS. Brian > Best, > Stefan > > -- > You are receiving this mail because: > You are watching the assignee of the bug. >