On Mon 11-06-07 18:47:05, Mark Lord wrote:
> Jan Kara wrote:
> >>Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 12:11:58 -0400
> >>>Chuck Ebbert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 06/07/2007 11:41 AM, Andrew Morton wrote:
> >>>>>> mount /var/lib/mythtv -oremount,ro
> >>>>>> sync
> >>>>>> umount /var/lib/mythtv
> >>>>>Did this succeed? If the application is still truncating that file,
> >>>>>the
> >>>>>umount should have failed.
> >>>>Shouldn't sync should wait for truncate to finish?
> >>>I can't think of anything in there at present which would cause that to
> >>>happen, and it's not immediately obvious how we _could_ make it happen -
> >>>we
> >>>have an inode which potentially has no dirty pages and which is itself
> >>>clean. The truncate can span multiple journal commits, so forcing a
> >>>journal commit in sync() won't necessarily block behind the truncate.
> >>>
> >>>I guess we could ask sync to speculatively take and release every inode's
> >>>i_mutex or something. But even that would involve quite some
> >>>hoop-jumping
> >>>due to those infuriating spinlock-protected list_heads on the superblock.
> >>>
> >>>hmm.
> >>Okay, I added more instrumentation and retested today.
> >>
> >>Good and Bad.
> >>The umount does indeed fail while the massive unlink is happening,
> >>so I can just loop on that a few times before giving up.
> >>
> >>But.. the earlier "remount,ro".. well.. I don't know what it does.
> >>I did get it to lock up solid, though.. hung on the "remount,ro"
> >>when issued during an unlink of a 15GB file. The disk I/O eventually
> >>completes, and drives go idle, but the system remains hung inside
> >>the remount,ro call.
> >>
> >>Alt-sysrq-T was functioning, so I have some screen shots (.jpg) here:
> >>
> >> http://rtr.ca/remount_ro/
> > Thanks for the traces.
> >
> >>That's definitely a bug.
> > Yes. We have a nice lock inversion there. ext3_remount() is called
> >with sb->s_lock held and waits for transaction to finish in
> >journal_lock_updates(). On the other hand ext3_orphan_del() is called
> >inside a transaction and tries to do lock_super()... Bad luck.
>
> Peachy. Do you have enough knowledge here to generate a fix for this?
> Maybe just have the remount break out, releasing all locks, and then
> loop and retry (or return -EBUSY?) when this happens?
Yes, I'll try to cook up some patch. As I'm looking through the code,
ext3_remount seems to be the only place where we need to start a
transaction under s_lock. So probably we could release sb->s_lock for
the time we have to wait for a transaction...
Honza
--
Jan Kara <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
SuSE CR Labs
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
