On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 11:57:13AM +0200, Alex Lyakas wrote: > Hi Dave, > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 2:39 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > commit 40194ecc6d78327d98e66de3213db96ca0a31e6f > > Author: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri Dec 6 12:30:11 2013 -0800 > > > > xfs: reinstate the ilock in xfs_readdir > > > > Although it was removed in commit 051e7cd44ab8, ilock needs to be taken in > > xfs_readdir because we might have to read the extent list in from disk. This > > keeps other threads from reading from or writing to the extent list while it i > > being read in and is still in a transitional state. > > > > This has been associated with "Access to block zero" messages on directories > > with large numbers of extents resulting from excessive filesytem fragmentation > > as well as extent list corruption. Unfortunately no test case at this point. > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Myers <bpm@xxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > Seems to match the behaviour being seen. > > > > Alex, what type of inode is the one that is reporting the "access to > > block zero" errors? > I have just searched the relevant file system for this inode, but such > inode was not found:( > # find /export/XXX -mount -inum 1946454529 > did not find anything. Perhaps it got deleted since the incident. It probably got cleared by xfs_repair because it was corrupt.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
