On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 02:34:00PM -0700, Arthur Jones wrote:
> Hi Eric, ...
>
> On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 11:03:49AM -0700, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > [...]
> > Something is definitely racy here; in my simple testcase I get failures
> > maybe 30-50% of the time...
>
> Some more info: in the working case, the inodes are put
> back on sb->s_dirty at then next ext3_sync_fs() call:
>
> __fsync_super -> DQUOT_SYNC -> ext3_sync_fs -> log_wait_commit
>
> In the failing case, journal_start_commit returns 0 in ext_sync_fs
> and the inodes disappear into never-never land...
More details, these are dumps at __log_start_commit in the
call chain described above, the first column is the failing
case, the next column is working case, t_expires is the delta
from the time the dump was taken:
journal->j_flags 0x10 0x10
journal->j_tail_sequence 515 519
journal->j_transaction_sequence 517 522
journal->j_commit_sequence 514 519
journal->j_commit_request 516 520
journal->j_running_transaction->t_tid 516 521
journal->j_running_transaction->t_state 0 0
journal->j_running_transaction->t_updates 0 0
journal->j_running_transaction->t_handle_count 27305 27344
journal->j_running_transaction->t_expires -566 28
Can you tell from this whether the transactions
are messed up or whether we're just missing a
wake_up? Any other info you'd like to see?
Arthur
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
