xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: synchronization of XFS

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: synchronization of XFS
From: Steve Lord <lord@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 16:36:52 -0600
Cc: Chris Wedgwood <cw@xxxxxxxx>, Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@xxxxxxxxxx>, "IKARASHI, Seiichi" <ikarashi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20040325144519.A23764@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <4060F7FC.8090602@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040325063902.GA9697@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4062C97A.6030702@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040325124152.GA12078@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4062D7E5.6070501@xxxxxxxxxx> <20040325132200.GA12333@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <4062E19A.90207@xxxxxxx> <20040325140723.GA12558@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20040325144519.A23764@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (X11/20040208)
Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
>>>Now if grub is opening the block device and reading out of that, it
>>>is looking at the same pages for metadata that xfs is looking at in
>>>memory. There is a bug where you can get corruption if you access
>>>the block device in parallel with the filesystem. Possibly this is
>>>behind the problem.
>>
>>This will cause an oops on 2.6.x won't it --- so I suspect if this is
>>behind the problem the report will be have been different.
> 
> 
> I don't think they're hitting the problem, the symptoms look very different.
> 

And thinking about it some more, having grub make the filesystem remount 
readonly would force everything down to disk unlike just doing a sync
call.

Steve





<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>