On 8/10/23 11:53 PM, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Thu, 10 Aug 2023 at 22:29, Kent Overstreet <kent.overstreet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Thu, Aug 10, 2023 at 10:20:22PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: >>> If it's purely "umount doesnt' succeed because the filesystem is still >>> busy with cleanups", then things are much better. >> >> That's exactly it. We have various tests that kill -9 fio and then >> umount, and umount spuriously fails. > > Well, it sounds like Jens already has some handle on at least one > io_uring shutdown case that didn't wait for completion. > > At the same time, a random -EBUSY is kind of an expected failure in > real life, since outside of strictly controlled environments you could > easily have just some entirely unrelated thing that just happens to > have looked at the filesystem when you tried to unmount it. > > So any real-life use tends to use umount in a (limited) loop. It might > just make sense for the fsstress test scripts to do the same > regardless. > > There's no actual good reason to think that -EBUSY is a hard error. It > very much can be transient. Indeed, any production kind of workload would have some kind of graceful handling for that. That doesn't mean we should not fix the delayed fput to avoid it if we can, just that it might make sense to have an xfstest helper that at least tries X times with a sync in between or something like that. -- Jens Axboe
