2001-04-17 15:41:10

by Matthew Jacob

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: active after unmount?


Unmounting a SCSI disk device succeeded, and yielded:

Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot)
Kernel 2.4.3 on a 2-processor i686

chico login: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have
a nice day...






2001-04-19 21:56:46

by Matthew Jacob

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: active after unmount?



On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Brian J. Watson wrote:

> > Unmounting a SCSI disk device succeeded, and yielded:
> >
> > Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot)
> > Kernel 2.4.3 on a 2-processor i686
> >
> > chico login: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have
> > a nice day...
> >
>
>
> This message comes out of kill_super(). I would guess that somebody's
> mismanaging VFS refcounts, but there's not enough info here to diagnose the
> problem. What filesystem are you using? Is this reproducible? What do you have
> to do between mounting and unmounting to reproduce the problem?

>>>>>>ext2<<<<<<, haven't reproduced it yet, on a 2x686 256MB memory,
SCSI midlayer default, with 2.4.3.

-matt



2001-04-19 21:58:10

by Brian J. Watson

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: active after unmount?

> Unmounting a SCSI disk device succeeded, and yielded:
>
> Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot)
> Kernel 2.4.3 on a 2-processor i686
>
> chico login: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have
> a nice day...
>


This message comes out of kill_super(). I would guess that somebody's
mismanaging VFS refcounts, but there's not enough info here to diagnose the
problem. What filesystem are you using? Is this reproducible? What do you have
to do between mounting and unmounting to reproduce the problem?

--
Brian Watson
Compaq Computer

2001-04-19 22:10:07

by Andi Kleen

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: active after unmount?

On Thu, Apr 19, 2001 at 02:56:15PM -0700, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Brian J. Watson wrote:
>
> > > Unmounting a SCSI disk device succeeded, and yielded:
> > >
> > > Red Hat Linux release 6.2 (Zoot)
> > > Kernel 2.4.3 on a 2-processor i686
> > >
> > > chico login: VFS: Busy inodes after unmount. Self-destruct in 5 seconds. Have
> > > a nice day...
> > >
> >
> >
> > This message comes out of kill_super(). I would guess that somebody's
> > mismanaging VFS refcounts, but there's not enough info here to diagnose the
> > problem. What filesystem are you using? Is this reproducible? What do you have
> > to do between mounting and unmounting to reproduce the problem?
>
> >>>>>>ext2<<<<<<, haven't reproduced it yet, on a 2x686 256MB memory,
> SCSI midlayer default, with 2.4.3.

I've seen it a lot with the autofs. You can check what it is with the
following small debug patch.

Index: fs/inode.c
===================================================================
RCS file: /cvs/linux/fs/inode.c,v
retrieving revision 1.122
diff -u -u -r1.122 inode.c
--- fs/inode.c 2001/03/24 09:36:25 1.122
+++ fs/inode.c 2001/04/19 22:07:17
@@ -443,6 +443,13 @@
count++;
continue;
}
+#if 1
+ printk("inode %u:%lu busy\n", inode->i_dev, inode->i_ino);
+ if (inode->i_dentry.next != &inode->i_dentry)
+ printk("for file %s\n",
+ list_entry(inode->i_dentry.next, struct dentry, d_alias)->d_name.name);
+#endif
+
busy = 1;
}
/* only unused inodes may be cached with i_count zero */


-Andi

2001-04-19 22:17:47

by Matthew Jacob

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: active after unmount?


'kay, great, thanks.. I'll put it in and see if things show up again


2001-04-20 00:41:32

by Alexander Viro

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: active after unmount?



On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:

>
> 'kay, great, thanks.. I'll put it in and see if things show up again

Guys, it's a known bug, fixed in 2.4.4-pre3. See the change to fs/super.c
between 2.4.4-pre2 and 2.4.4-pre3 - it's quite small.

2001-04-20 03:23:25

by Matthew Jacob

[permalink] [raw]
Subject: Re: active after unmount?


Double cool then.

>
>
> On Thu, 19 Apr 2001, Matthew Jacob wrote:
>
> >
> > 'kay, great, thanks.. I'll put it in and see if things show up again
>
> Guys, it's a known bug, fixed in 2.4.4-pre3. See the change to fs/super.c
> between 2.4.4-pre2 and 2.4.4-pre3 - it's quite small.
>