Quick fix for lingering snapdir unmount problems #14462
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Unfortunately, even after e79b680, I still, much more rarely, tripped asserts when playing with many ctldir mounts at once. Since this appears to happen if we dispatched twice too fast, just ignore it. We don't actually need to do anything if someone already started doing it for us. Signed-off-by: Rich Ercolani <[email protected]>
rincebrain
force-pushed
the
ctldir_once_and_for_all
branch
from
32a5da2 to
f918334
Compare
behlendorf
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2023
behlendorf
added
Status: Accepted
lundman
pushed a commit
to openzfsonwindows/openzfs
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 3, 2023
Unfortunately, even after e79b680, I still, much more rarely, tripped asserts when playing with many ctldir mounts at once. Since this appears to happen if we dispatched twice too fast, just ignore it. We don't actually need to do anything if someone already started doing it for us. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rich Ercolani <[email protected]> Closes openzfs#14462
13 tasks
rincebrain
added a commit
to rincebrain/zfs
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2023
Unfortunately, even after e79b680, I still, much more rarely, tripped asserts when playing with many ctldir mounts at once. Since this appears to happen if we dispatched twice too fast, just ignore it. We don't actually need to do anything if someone already started doing it for us. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rich Ercolani <[email protected]> Closes openzfs#14462
rincebrain
added a commit
to rincebrain/zfs
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 18, 2023
Unfortunately, even after e79b680, I still, much more rarely, tripped asserts when playing with many ctldir mounts at once. Since this appears to happen if we dispatched twice too fast, just ignore it. We don't actually need to do anything if someone already started doing it for us. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rich Ercolani <[email protected]> Closes openzfs#14462
13 tasks
behlendorf
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 25, 2023
Unfortunately, even after e79b680, I still, much more rarely, tripped asserts when playing with many ctldir mounts at once. Since this appears to happen if we dispatched twice too fast, just ignore it. We don't actually need to do anything if someone already started doing it for us. Reviewed-by: Brian Behlendorf <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Rich Ercolani <[email protected]> Closes #14462
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Unfortunately, even after e79b680, I still, much more rarely, tripped asserts when playing with many ctldir mounts at once.
Since this appears to happen if we dispatched twice too fast trying to do the unmount, and one started before this one, just ignore it. We don't actually need to do anything if someone already started doing it for us, and if that one somehow fails, we'll eventually do it again.
(n.b. - I've been running this patch for almost a year at this point and not had any issues with it, I just literally forgot I never upstreamed it until someone complained about hitting this on master yesterday. Whoopsie.)
Motivation and Context
#11632 kept happening to me, albeit much more rarely.
Description
Just...don't care if we realize someone started the unmount before us.
How Has This Been Tested?
I haven't seen that assert from #11632 trip since I applied this patch, and it's been almost a year.
Types of changes
Checklist:
Signed-off-by.