On Mon 07-11-11 21:45:31, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 18:29:39 +0100, Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon 07-11-11 12:00:41, Dmitry Monakhov wrote:
> > > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 14:34:31 +0900, Kazuya Mio <k-mio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > 2011/10/25 22:40, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > Please no. Generally this boils down to what do we do with dirty data
> > > > > when there's error in writing them out. Currently we just throw them away
> > > > > (e.g. in media error case) but I don't think that's a generally good thing
> > > > > because e.g. admin may want to copy the data to other working storage or
> > > > > so. So I think we should rather keep the data and provide a mechanism for
> > > > > userspace to ask kernel to get rid of the data (so that we don't eventually
> > > > > run OOM).
> > > >
> > > > I see. I agree with you.
> > > >
> > > > >> Do you have any ideas?
> > > > > So the question is what would you like to achieve. If you just want to
> > > > > unblock a thread then a solution would be to make a thread at
> > > > > balance_dirty_pages() killable. If generally you want to get rid of dirty
> > > > > memory, then I don't have a really good answer but throwing dirty data away
> > > > > seems like a bad answer to me.
> > > >
> > > > The problem is that we cannot unmount the corrupted filesystem due to
> > > > un-killable dd process. We must bring down the system to resume the service
> > > > with no dirty pages. I think it is important for the service continuity
> > > > to be able to kill the thread handling in balance_dirty_pages().
> > > In fact you are very lucky because dd is just deadlocked, in many cases
> > > journal abort result in BUG_ON triggering(if IO load is high enough).
> > Can you provide the exact kernel message? I'd be interested...
> Several times i've failed in journal_stop() here:
> int jbd2_journal_stop(handle_t *handle)
> {
> transaction_t *transaction = handle->h_transaction;
> journal_t *journal = transaction->t_journal;
> int err, wait_for_commit = 0;
> tid_t tid;
> pid_t pid;
>
> J_ASSERT(journal_current_handle() == handle);
>
> if (is_handle_aborted(handle))
> err = -EIO;
> else {
> J_ASSERT(atomic_read(&transaction->t_updates) > 0);
> ##FAILED HERE ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> err = 0;
> }
Hum, interesting. The logic wrt t_updates looks correct to me. Whenever
we create a new handle in a transaction, we increase t_updates. Whenever we
remove the handle, decrease t_updates. Whether the journal / handle is
aborted or not does not play any role here. So I fail to see how the
assertion can be triggered - only if we tried to release a handle twice or
something like that...
Honza
--
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
