On 4/28/14, 12:49 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 04/28/14 12:26, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> On 4/28/14, 12:22 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote: >>> On 04/28/14 12:18, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>> On 4/28/14, 11:47 AM, Christoph Hellwig wrote: >>>>> On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 11:35:16AM -0500, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>>>>> Similar to xfs_file_fsync(), I think xfs_dir_fsync() needs >>>>>> to test for a shut down fs, >>>>> >>>>> It probably should. >>>>> >>>>>> lest we go down paths we'll >>>>>> never be able to complete; Boris reported that during some >>>>>> stress tests he had threads stuck in xlog_cil_force_lsn >>>>>> via xfs_dir_fsync(). >>>>> >>>>> But this could still happen if we get a shutdown coming in after that >>>>> test. >>>> >>>> True... that looked a bit hairier to sort out. :( >>>> >>>> -Eric >>>> >>> >>> >>> Are the sync lsn look okay? Was there an error writing the iclog buffer? >>> >>> xfs_do_force_shutdown() will also do a xlog_cil_force_lsn() via the >>> xfs_log_force_umount if the log buffer write was not in error. That >>> should be the same or later than this lsn. >> >> I don't have full details, unfortunately, just the sysrq backtraces. >> >> -Eric >> >>> --Mark. > > anything in the log as to what caused the hang? You mention a forced shutdown; what caused the forced shutdown? Perhaps Boris can answer that. > Is this the latest bits (3.15)? It was 3.10 with backported xfs bits from about 3.14. -Eric > --Mark. > _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
