Re: [PATCH for 4.14] xfs_copy: don't hang if /all/ the targets hit write errors

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 




On 11/16/17 10:48 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 07:45:09PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017 at 03:10:39PM -0600, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11/15/17 7:14 PM, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>>>> From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>
>>>> If xfs_copy is told to copy a filesystem and /all/ the writer threads
>>>> hit an write error, there won't be any threads to unlock mainwait, which
>>>> means that write_wbuf will deadlock with itself trying to lock mainwait.
>>>> Therefore, if we discover that all the writer threads are dead, just
>>>> bail out.
>>>>
>>>> Discovered by running xfs/073 with a tiny test device.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>> ---
>>>>  copy/xfs_copy.c |   12 ++++++++++++
>>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/copy/xfs_copy.c b/copy/xfs_copy.c
>>>> index 33e05df..fb37375 100644
>>>> --- a/copy/xfs_copy.c
>>>> +++ b/copy/xfs_copy.c
>>>> @@ -476,6 +476,7 @@ void
>>>>  write_wbuf(void)
>>>>  {
>>>>  	int		i;
>>>> +	int		badness = 0;
>>>>  
>>>>  	/* verify target threads */
>>>>  	for (i = 0; i < num_targets; i++)
>>>> @@ -486,6 +487,17 @@ write_wbuf(void)
>>>>  	for (i = 0; i < num_targets; i++)
>>>>  		if (target[i].state != INACTIVE)
>>>>  			pthread_mutex_unlock(&targ[i].wait);	/* wake up */
>>>> +		else
>>>> +			badness++;
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * If all the targets are inactive then there won't be any io
>>>> +	 * threads left to release mainwait.  We're screwed, so bail out.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (badness == num_targets) {
>>>> +		check_errors();
>>>
>>> libxfs_umount(mp); ?
>>
>> Doh. v2 on its way
> 
> Hmmm.  The other error bailouts don't call libxfs_umount and it hardly
> matters since we're exiting anyway.  The mp is a local variable to main
> so we'd have to convey abort status out of write_wbuf back to main.
> That's a bigger change; do you want me to pursue that instead?

Eh if there's precedent for such sloppiness, I guess we can stick with
V1.  ;)

Thanks for checking.

-Eric
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [XFS Filesystem Development (older mail)]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Trails]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux