lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: busy inodes -> ext3 umount crash
From
Date
On Wed, 2010-04-21 at 17:16 +0200, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> On 04/20/2010 05:28 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Tue 20-04-10 16:12:03, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >> On 04/19/2010 04:33 PM, Jiri Slaby wrote:
> >>> The trigger for busy inodes is as simple as (I=initialization done only
> >>> once):
> >>> I> # dd if=/dev/zero of=/dev/shm/ext3 bs=1024 count=1 seek=$((100*1024))
> >>> I> # mkfs.ext3 -m 0 /dev/shm/ext3
> >>> # mount -oloop /dev/shm/ext3 /mnt/c
> >>> # umount /mnt/c
> >>> # dmesg|tail
> >>> VFS: Busy inodes after unmount of loop0. Self-destruct in 5 seconds.
> >>> Have a nice day...
> >>>
> >>> (The printk time varies -- this sequence really suffices.)
> >>
> >> Well, this happens only after gnome-session is started and it's fuzzy --
> >> sometimes it happens, sometimes not. I didn't find 100% trigger yet.
> > Hmph - maybe something in inotify? Dunno...
>
> fsnotify...
>
> >>>> So if you can easily reproduce
> >>>> the "busy inodes" message then I'd start with debugging that one. Do you
> >>>> see it also with vanilla kernels?
> >>
> >> Vanilla seems not to be affected. It's in next/master already though
> >> (2603ecd9). I'll investigate it further later.
> > Do you mean it's in today's linux-next but not in Linus' tree?
>
> Yes, exactly.
>
> And the winner is (seemingly):
> commit 69c1182c4e5d8b7da772ddad512c6f6b67ec1bb8
> Author: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
> Date: Thu Dec 17 21:24:27 2009 -0500
>
> fsnotify: vfsmount marks generic functions
>
> Much like inode-mark.c has all of the code dealing with marks on inodes
> this patch adds a vfsmount-mark.c which has similar code but is intended
> for marks on vfsmounts.
>
> Signed-off-by: Eric Paris <eparis@redhat.com>
>
>
> I can't verify it by reverting on the top of -mm as it doesn't revert
> cleanly. Do you see any bug in there?

You cannot revert, but you can certainly reset --hard before and after
this patch. I'll take a look, but I'm not seeing a problem right off
hand. This patch wasn't supposed to mess with inode refcounting at
all....

-Eric



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-21 17:27    [W:0.051 / U:0.056 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site