Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759878AbXK0VfU (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:35:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1758761AbXK0VfH (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:35:07 -0500 Received: from ogre.sisk.pl ([217.79.144.158]:45820 "EHLO ogre.sisk.pl" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1758757AbXK0VfB (ORCPT ); Tue, 27 Nov 2007 16:35:01 -0500 From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" To: David Chinner Subject: Re: XFS related Oops (suspend/resume related) Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 22:53:00 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 (enterprise 20070904.708012) Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com, Tino Keitel References: <20071112064706.GA23595@dose.home.local> <200711271651.39180.rjw@sisk.pl> <20071127211155.GK119954183@sgi.com> In-Reply-To: <20071127211155.GK119954183@sgi.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200711272253.01136.rjw@sisk.pl> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2884 Lines: 75 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. 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 --- 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/