From: Christian Kujau Subject: Re: EXT4-fs (dm-1): Couldn't remount RDWR because of unprocessed orphan inode list Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2011 18:34:36 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <4E66478E.90102@redhat.com> <4E664DFD.80308@redhat.com> <20110908185139.GA2393@quack.suse.cz> <20110910200414.GA6709@quack.suse.cz> <20111005180339.GG23467@quack.suse.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Cc: Eric Sandeen , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, mszeredi@suse.cz, Al Viro To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from trent.utfs.org ([194.246.123.103]:57808 "EHLO trent.utfs.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751906Ab1JFBej (ORCPT ); Wed, 5 Oct 2011 21:34:39 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20111005180339.GG23467@quack.suse.cz> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 5 Oct 2011 at 20:03, Jan Kara wrote: >> With Miklos' patches applied to -rc5, this happend again just now :-( >> > Thanks for careful testing! Hmm, since you are able to reproduce on ppc > but not on x86 there might be some memory ordering bug in Miklos' patches > or it's simply because of different timing. Miklos, care to debug this > further? Just to be clear: I'm still not entirely sure how to reproduce this at will. I *assumed* that the daily remount-rw-and-ro-again routine that left some inodes in limbo and eventually lead to those "unprocessed orphan inodes". With that in mind I tried to reproduce this with the help of a test-script (test-remount.sh, [0]) - but the message did not occur while the script was running. I've ran the script again today on the said powerpc machine on a loop-mounted 500MB ext4 partition. But even after 100 iterations no such message occured. So maybe it's caused by something else or my test-script just doesn't get the scenario right and there's something subtle to this whole remounting-business I haven't figured out yet, leading to those orphan inodes. I'm at 3.1.0-rc9 now and will wait until the errors occur again. Christian. [0] nerdbynature.de/bits/3.1-rc4/ext4/ -- BOFH excuse #423: It's not RFC-822 compliant.