On 4/18/13 8:23 AM, 符永涛 wrote: > Hi Brian and Eric, > The shutdown is not easy to produce but finally right now 2 of our servers in our test cluster xfs was shutdown. > > the trace output as following > https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B7n2C4T5tfNCLXRYUWJ0b19JcWc/edit?usp=sharing > here's something interesting, for 2 inodes we have double/racing calls to xfs_iunlink: === 0x5cc0b === <...>-8336 [004] 6931.372924: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-8336 [004] 6931.372965: xfs_iunlink_remove: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-27541 [001] 35061.349747: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-3356 [001] 36449.762504: xfs_iunlink_remove: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-3300 [003] 41013.398566: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-26115 [012] 41013.399884: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-26115 [012] 41013.399935: xfs_iunlink_remove: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-28961 [000] 68977.951208: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b <...>-3364 [021] 81616.210533: xfs_iunlink_remove: dev 8:16 ino 0x5cc0b === 0x7ef8c === <...>-13169 [001] 118751.536025: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x7ef8c <...>-13169 [001] 118751.536049: xfs_iunlink_remove: dev 8:16 ino 0x7ef8c <...>-3594 [015] 119027.006161: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x7ef8c <...>-3594 [015] 119027.006186: xfs_iunlink_remove: dev 8:16 ino 0x7ef8c <...>-3591 [001] 121423.286004: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x7ef8c <...>-4141 [019] 121423.288518: xfs_iunlink: dev 8:16 ino 0x7ef8c <...>-4141 [019] 121423.288541: xfs_iunlink_remove: dev 8:16 ino 0x7ef8c 2 threads on 2 different CPUs adding the same inode to the unlinked list in a race; this will corrupt the list and lead to the failure to find the other inode we're looking for. So, progress! We'll take a look at the iunlink paths. -Eric _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
