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=-1.0 required=3.0 tests=MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS 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 1178CC2D0C8 for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:34:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2394207FF for ; Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:34:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726833AbfLQJef convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:34:35 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39016 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726496AbfLQJef (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Dec 2019 04:34:35 -0500 From: bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org To: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org Subject: [Bug 205833] fsfreeze blocks close(fd) on xfs sometimes Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 09:34:34 +0000 X-Bugzilla-Reason: None X-Bugzilla-Type: changed X-Bugzilla-Watch-Reason: AssignedTo filesystem_xfs@kernel-bugs.kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Product: File System X-Bugzilla-Component: XFS X-Bugzilla-Version: 2.5 X-Bugzilla-Keywords: X-Bugzilla-Severity: normal X-Bugzilla-Who: kernel.org@estada.ch X-Bugzilla-Status: NEW X-Bugzilla-Resolution: X-Bugzilla-Priority: P1 X-Bugzilla-Assigned-To: filesystem_xfs@kernel-bugs.kernel.org X-Bugzilla-Flags: X-Bugzilla-Changed-Fields: Message-ID: In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT X-Bugzilla-URL: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ Auto-Submitted: auto-generated MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-xfs-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org 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? Best, Stefan -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching the assignee of the bug.