Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 18:47:32 +0100
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
Cc: "'linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com'" <linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] How well tested is the snapshot feature?
Message-ID: <20020607174732.GA1076@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk>
References: <2D0AFEFEE711D611923E009027D39F2B02F18A@nasexs1.meridian-data.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2D0AFEFEE711D611923E009027D39F2B02F18A@nasexs1.meridian-data.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i
From: Joe Thornber <joe@fib011235813.fsnet.co.uk>
Sender: owner-linux-xfs@oss.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 08:35:44AM -0700, Dale Stephenson wrote:
> device-mapper (LVM2) uses (with VFS enhancement) the very same
> fsync_dev_lockfs() and unlockfs() calls.  However, the COW activity is not
> handled through brw_kiovec(), instead being transferred to device-mapper's
> kcopyd.  I haven't worked with LVM2 yet, so it's certainly possible that
> kcopyd allieviates the pressure on kupdated.  But in theory I would expect
> it to be susceptible to the same file system deadlocks experienced by LVM1.

I'm not sure what this kupdated interaction that you mention could be.
Both brw_kiovec and kcopyd stay well away from both the filesystem
and the buffer cache.

> 2) I'm still seeing an occasional xfs_freeze deadlock.
> xfs_unmountfs_writesb() (from xfs_freeze) and kupdated get stuck on separate
> pagebuf locks.  It occurs with multiple snapshots and streaming writes to
> the snapshot source over both samba and nfs.

Which kernel are you using ?  I've found that 2.4.18 can be easily
persuaded to deadlock by having two processes making GFP_NOIO requests
for memory whilst the system is short of free memory. 2.4.19-pre9
works fine.

- Joe