[Top] [All Lists]

Re: do_sync() and XFSQA test 182 failures....

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: do_sync() and XFSQA test 182 failures....
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:19:46 -0400
In-reply-to: <20081031220349.GC19509@disturbed>
References: <20081030085020.GP17077@disturbed> <20081030224625.GA18690@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081031001249.GM4985@disturbed> <20081031004814.GN4985@disturbed> <20081031203716.GB11514@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20081031220349.GC19509@disturbed>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 09:03:49AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >   if (!(sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY))
> > > +         xfs_sync_fsdata(XFS_M(sb), SYNC_WAIT);
> > 
> > Not commenting on the rest yet, but I'm sure you noticed that before
> > your patch we ever called xfs_sync_fsdata with SYNC_WAIT at all.  I
> > think with the current codebase there is nothing to guarantee we ever
> > write the superblock out to disk as xfs_wait_buftarg specificly
> > excludes the superblock (XBF_FS_MANAGED)
> Almost. unmount calls xfs_unmountfs_writesb() which does a
> synchronous write of the superblock. But in the current code sync(1)
> certainly never, ever triggers a superblock write we wait for...

True, missed it due to the opencoding.  With my patch to kill the
shared readonly bits we should be able to make it use xfs_sync_fsdata
for consistency.

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