On 05/29/2012 01:04 PM, Ben Myers wrote: > Hey Brian, > > On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 11:36:51AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote: >> On 05/29/2012 11:07 AM, Ben Myers wrote: >>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 03:45:36PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: >>>> On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 05:39:52PM -0500, Ben Myers wrote: >>>>> Anyway, I'll make some time to work on this tomorrow so I can test it >>>>> over the weekend. >>>> >>>> This is going to spin over the weekend. See what you think. >>> >>> I'm reasonably satisfied with the test results over the weekend. I did end >>> up hitting an unrelated assert: >> >> I started testing the xfsaild idle patch based against the xfs tree over the >> weekend (after testing successfully against Linus' tree for several days) and >> reproduced the xfs_sync_worker() hang that Mark alerted me to last week. I >> was considering doing a bisect in that tree since it doesn't occur in Linus' >> tree, but it sounds like I can pull this patch now and shouldn't expect to >> reproduce the sync_worker() hang either, correct? Thanks. > > D'oh! The xfs_sync_worker hang that Mark mentioned last week is when the sync > worker blocks on log reservation for the dummy transaction used to cover the > log, which means that it will not be calling xfs_ail_push_all, which might have > the effect of loosening things up a bit. > > This thread is about a crash due to the xfs_sync_worker racing with unmount. A > fix for this crash is in Linus' tree as of late last week. Here we're looking > into replacing the existing fix with something that is a bit cleaner. s_umount > is overkill for this situation, so now we're calling cancel_delayed_work_sync > to shutdown the sync_worker before shutting down the log in order to prevent > the crash. > > Unfortunately this fix won't help you with the hang. If you're considering > bisecting this, I think that Juerg Haefliger has reproduced a/the log hang all > the way back to 2.6.38. Also Chris J Arges has reproduced one on 2.6.32.52. > > See thread 'Still seeing hangs in xlog_grant_log_space'. The log hang is a > wily coyote. ;) > Ah, ok. Thanks for the context and sorry for the noise in this thread. I do find it interesting that I hit this rather quickly after so many hours of testing on Linus' tree without seeing it once. I didn't reproduce at the -rc2 tag in the xfs tree. That isn't too many bisections so perhaps I'll just carry on with the bisect since I need to gauge how often this occurs anyways. It will either prove my test as a sporadic reproducer and not provide anything useful, or I get lucky and maybe find a useful data point. If the latter, I'll carry it over to the right thread... ;) Brian > Regards, > Ben > > _______________________________________________ > xfs mailing list > xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx > http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
