On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 09:40:29PM +0300, Alex Lyakas wrote:
> Hello Dave,
>
> On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 1:46 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 08, 2016 at 04:21:02PM +0530, Shyam Kaushik wrote:
> >> Hi Dave, Brian, Carlos,
> >>
> >> While trying to reproduce this issue I have been running into different
> >> issues that are similar. Underlying issue remains the same when backend to
> >> XFS is failed & we unmount XFS, we run into hung-task timeout (180-secs)
> >> with stack like
> >>
> >> kernel: [14952.671131] [<ffffffffc06a5f59>]
> >> xfs_ail_push_all_sync+0xa9/0xe0 [xfs]
> >> kernel: [14952.671139] [<ffffffff810b26b0>] ?
> >> prepare_to_wait_event+0x110/0x110
> >> kernel: [14952.671181] [<ffffffffc0690111>] xfs_unmountfs+0x61/0x1a0
> >> [xfs]
> >>
> >> while running trace-events, XFS ail push keeps looping around
> >>
> >> xfsaild/dm-10-21143 [001] ...2 17878.555133: xfs_ilock_nowait: dev
> >> 253:10 ino 0x0 flags ILOCK_SHARED caller xfs_inode_item_push [xfs]
> >
> > Looks like either a stale inode (which should never reach the AIL)
> > or it's an inode that's been reclaimed and this is a use after free
> > situation. Given that we are failing IOs here, I'd suggest it's more
> > likely to be an IO failure that's caused a writeback problem, not an
> > interaction with stale inodes.
> >
> > So, look at xfs_iflush. If an IO fails, it is supposed to unlock the
> > inode by calling xfs_iflush_abort(), which will also remove it from
> > the AIL. This can also happen on reclaim of a dirty inode, and if so
> > we'll still reclaim the inode because reclaim assumes xfs_iflush()
> > cleans up properly.
> >
> > Which, apparently, it doesn't:
> >
> > /*
> > * Get the buffer containing the on-disk inode.
> > */
> > error = xfs_imap_to_bp(mp, NULL, &ip->i_imap, &dip, &bp, XBF_TRYLOCK, 0);
> > if (error || !bp) {
> > xfs_ifunlock(ip);
> > return error;
> > }
> >
> > This looks like a bug - xfs_iflush hasn't aborted the inode
> > writeback on failure - it's just unlocked the flush lock. Hence it
> > has left the inode dirty in the AIL, and then the inode has probably
> > then been reclaimed, setting the inode number to zero.
> In our case, we do not reach this call, because XFS is already marked
> as "shutdown", so in our case we do:
> /*
> * This may have been unpinned because the filesystem is shutting
> * down forcibly. If that's the case we must not write this inode
> * to disk, because the log record didn't make it to disk.
> *
> * We also have to remove the log item from the AIL in this case,
> * as we wait for an empty AIL as part of the unmount process.
> */
> if (XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(mp)) {
> error = -EIO;
> goto abort_out;
> }
>
> So we call xfs_iflush_abort, but due to "iip" being NULL (as Shyam
> mentioned earlier in this thread), we proceed directly to
> xfs_ifunlock(ip), which now becomes the same situation as you
> described above.
If you are getting this occuring, something else has already gone
wrong as you can't have a dirty inode without a log item attached to
it. So it appears to me that you are reporting a symptom of a
problem after it has occured, not the root cause. Maybe it is the
same root cause, maybe not. Either way, it doesn't help us solve any
problem.
> The comment clearly says "We also have to remove the log item from the
> AIL in this case, as we wait for an empty AIL as part of the unmount
> process." Could you perhaps point us at the code that is supposed to
> remove the log item from the AIL? Apparently this is not happening.
xfs_iflush_abort or xfs_iflush_done does that work.
-Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
