xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: XFS umount issue

To: Nuno Subtil <subtil@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: XFS umount issue
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 25 May 2011 09:39:43 +1000
Cc: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-reply-to: <BANLkTikj_ZY9g3mSmKAAv=qRaSvNQN=B3A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <BANLkTikNMrFzxJF4a86ZM55r3D=ThPFmOw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110524000243.GB32466@dastard> <BANLkTinJecB+CB-n0Au=yaUFLDiDUwhzwg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20110524075404.GG32466@dastard> <BANLkTikj_ZY9g3mSmKAAv=qRaSvNQN=B3A@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14)
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 03:18:11AM -0700, Nuno Subtil wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 00:54, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> >> > Ok, so there's nothing here that actually says it's an unmount
> >> > error. More likely it is a vmap problem in log recovery resulting in
> >> > aliasing or some other stale data appearing in the buffer pages.
> >> >
> >> > Can you add a 'xfs_logprint -t <device>' after the umount? You
> >> > should always see something like this telling you the log is clean:
> >>
> >> Well, I just ran into this again even without using the script:
> >>
> >> root@howl:/# umount /dev/md5
> >> root@howl:/# xfs_logprint -t /dev/md5
> >> xfs_logprint:
> >>     data device: 0x905
> >>     log device: 0x905 daddr: 488382880 length: 476936
> >>
> >>     log tail: 731 head: 859 state: <DIRTY>
> >>
> >>
> >> LOG REC AT LSN cycle 1 block 731 (0x1, 0x2db)
> >>
> >> LOG REC AT LSN cycle 1 block 795 (0x1, 0x31b)
> >
> > Was there any other output? If there were valid transactions between
> > the head and tail of the log xfs_logprint should have decoded them.
> 
> There was no more output here.

That doesn't seem quite right. Does it always look like sthis, even
if you do a sync before unmount?

> >> I see nothing in dmesg at umount time. Attempting to mount the device
> >> at this point, I got:
> >>
> >> [  764.516319] XFS (md5): Mounting Filesystem
> >> [  764.601082] XFS (md5): Starting recovery (logdev: internal)
> >> [  764.626294] XFS (md5): xlog_recover_process_data: bad clientid 0x0
> >
> > Yup, that's got bad information in a transaction header.
> >
> >> [  764.632559] XFS (md5): log mount/recovery failed: error 5
> >> [  764.638151] XFS (md5): log mount failed
> >>
> >> Based on your description, this would be an unmount problem rather
> >> than a vmap problem?
> >
> > Not clear yet. I forgot to mention that you need to do
> >
> > # echo 3 > /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches
> >
> > before you run xfs_logprint, otherwise it will see stale cached
> > pages and give erroneous results..
> 
> I added that before each xfs_logprint and ran the script again. Still
> the same results:
> 
> ...
> + mount /store
> + cd /store
> + tar xf test.tar
> + sync
> + umount /store
> + echo 3
> + xfs_logprint -t /dev/sda1
> xfs_logprint:
>     data device: 0x801
>     log device: 0x801 daddr: 488384032 length: 476936
> 
>     log tail: 2048 head: 2176 state: <DIRTY>
> 
> 
> LOG REC AT LSN cycle 1 block 2048 (0x1, 0x800)
> 
> LOG REC AT LSN cycle 1 block 2112 (0x1, 0x840)
> + mount /store
> mount: /dev/sda1: can't read superblock
> 
> Same messages in dmesg at this point.
> 
> > You might want to find out if your platform needs to (and does)
> > implement these functions:
> >
> > flush_kernel_dcache_page()
> > flush_kernel_vmap_range()
> > void invalidate_kernel_vmap_range()
> >
> > as these are what XFS relies on platforms to implement correctly to
> > avoid cache aliasing issues on CPUs with virtually indexed caches.
> 
> Is this what /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches relies on as well?

No, drop_caches frees the page cache and slab caches so future reads
need to be looked up from disk.

> flush_kernel_dcache_page is empty, the others are not but are
> conditionalized on the type of cache that is present. I wonder if that
> is somehow not being detected properly. Wouldn't that cause other
> areas of the system to misbehave as well?

vmap is not widely used throughout the kernel, and as a result
people porting linux to a new arch/CPU type often don't realise
there's anything to implement there because their system seems to be
working. That is, of course, until someone tries to use XFS.....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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