On Tue, 29 May 2007 23:38:13 +0400
Alexey Dobriyan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 11:40:42AM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > After spending quite a bit of time tracking down a "VFS: busy inodes
> > after unmount" problem, it occurs to me that it would be nice to be
> > able to force a panic when that occurs. While an oops message alone is
> > not generally helpful for tracking down this sort of problem,
> > collecting and analyzing a coredump when this occurs can be.
> >
> > The following patch adds a procfs tunable that allows you to force a
> > core when a "busy inodes after umount" problem occurs. It also changes
> > the classic error message to be something a bit less cryptic to users.
>
> > @@ -303,10 +305,15 @@ void generic_shutdown_super(struct super_block *sb)
> > sop->put_super(sb);
> >
> > /* Forget any remaining inodes */
> > - if (invalidate_inodes(sb)) {
> > - printk("VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of %s. "
> > - "Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have a nice day...\n",
> > - sb->s_id);
> > + if (busy = invalidate_inodes(sb)) {
> > + printk("VFS: %d busy inodes after unmount of %s. ",
> > + busy, sb->s_id);
> > + if (umount_debug != 0) {
> > + printk("Crashing host on request.\n");
> > + BUG();
> > + } else {
> > + printk("This machine will likely crash
> > eventually. Consider a reboot.\n");
> > + }
>
> You can add just BUG_ON here and do
>
> echo 1 >/proc/sys/kernel/panic_on_oops
>
I certainly could, but the problem is that there's little point in
panicing immediately here if you can't collect a coredump. Oops
messages aren't very helpful for tracking this sort of thing down, so
I'd think we want the BUG() conditional on something more granular
than panic_on_oops.
--
Jeff Layton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
