Messages in this thread | | | From | "Rafael J. Wysocki" <> | Subject | Re: XFS related Oops (suspend/resume related) | Date | Thu, 29 Nov 2007 22:05:24 +0100 |
| |
On Tuesday, 27 of November 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > On Tuesday, 27 of November 2007, David Chinner wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2007 at 04:51:38PM +0100, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > On Monday, 26 of November 2007, Rafael J. Wysocki wrote: > > > > On Monday, 26 of November 2007, David Chinner wrote: > > > > > Now there's a message that I haven't seen in about 3 years. > > > > > > > > > > It indicates that the linux inode connected to the xfs_inode is not > > > > > the correct one. i.e. that the linux inode cache is out of step with > > > > > the XFS inode cache. > > > > > > > > > > Basically, that is not supposed to happen. I suspect that the way > > > > > threads are frozen is resulting in an inode lookup racing with > > > > > a reclaim. The reclaim thread gets stopped after any use threads, > > > > > and so we could have the situation that a process blocked in lookup > > > > > has the XFS inode reclaimed and reused before it gets unblocked. > > > > > > > > > > The question is why is it happening now when none of that code in > > > > > XFS has changed? > > > > > > > > > > Rafael, when are threads frozen? Only when they schedule or call > > > > > try_to_freeze()? > > > > > > > > Kernel threads freeze only when they call try_to_freeze(). User space tasks > > > > freeze while executing the signals handling code. > > > > > > > > > Did the freezer mechanism change in 2.6.23 (this is on 2.6.23.1)? > > > > > > > > Yes. Kernel threads are not sent fake signals by the freezer any more. > > > > > > Ah, sorry, this change has been merged after 2.6.23. However, before 2.6.23 > > > we had another important change that caused all kernel threads to have > > > PF_NOFREEZE set by default, unless they call set_freezable() explicitly. > > > > So try_to_freeze() will never freeze a thread if it has not been > > set_freezable()? And xfsbufd will never be frozen? > > No, it won't. > > I must have overlooked it, probably because it calls refrigerator() directly > and not try_to_freeze() ... > > I think something like the appended patch will help, then.
Tino, can you check if this patch helps, please?
Greetings, Rafael
> --- > Fix breakage caused by commit 831441862956fffa17b9801db37e6ea1650b0f69 > that did not introduce the necessary call to set_freezable() in > xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c . > > Signed-off-by: Rafael J. Wysocki <rjw@sisk.pl> > --- > fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > Index: linux-2.6/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c > =================================================================== > --- linux-2.6.orig/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c > +++ linux-2.6/fs/xfs/linux-2.6/xfs_buf.c > @@ -1750,6 +1750,8 @@ xfsbufd( > > current->flags |= PF_MEMALLOC; > > + set_freezable(); > + > do { > if (unlikely(freezing(current))) { > set_bit(XBT_FORCE_SLEEP, &target->bt_flags); > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ > >
-- "Premature optimization is the root of all evil." - Donald Knuth - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |