Re: shutdown bugs, since about 2.6.31 or so

Suresh Jayaraman <[email protected]>
Newsgroups gmane.linux.file-systems.cifs,gmane.linux.kernel
Message-ID <[email protected]>
On 03/23/2010 04:13 PM, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 09:59:57 +0530
>>
>> On 03/23/2010 06:20 AM, Gene Heskett wrote:
>>> Greetings;
>>>
>>> I do not know if I am miss-configured or what, and I hadn't worried about it 
>>> extensively because the machine runs fine ANAICT.
>>>
>>> But any reboot method short of just pressing the hdwe reset button generates 
>>> quite a lengthy process of repeatedly pressing ctl-alt-del, minimum of 6 
>>> times I believe, in order to actually do a shutdown, and this isn't at all 
>>> graceful.  Not all of it makes it to the log, but here is what does.
>>>
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.619173] BUG: Dentry d76beaa0{i=2,n=/} 
>>> still in use (1) [unmount of cifs cifs]
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.619191] ------------[ cut here 
>>> ]------------
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.619303] kernel BUG at fs/dcache.c:676!
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.619420] invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] 
>>> PREEMPT SMP

Is your server an OS/2 server by any chance?

>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] Pid: 5747, comm: umount.cifs 
>>> Not tainted 2.6.34-rc2 #1 M2N-SLI DELUXE/System Product Name
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] EIP: 0060:[<c10946ae>] EFLAGS: 
>>> 00010246 CPU: 1
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] EIP is at 
>>> shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree+0x14b/0x1fe
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] EAX: 0000005b EBX: 00000001 
>>> ECX: 00000046 EDX: 00000000
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] ESI: d76beaa0 EDI: d76beafc 
>>> EBP: d55e6f24 ESP: d55e6ef4
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  DS: 007b ES: 007b FS: 00d8 GS: 
>>> 00e0 SS: 0068
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] Process umount.cifs (pid: 5747, 
>>> ti=d55e6000 task=d55d8780 task.ti=d55e6000)
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] Stack:
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  c12d20ac d76beaa0 00000002 
>>> d76beafc 00000001 fa14da01 dc956b64 fa14da01
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] <0> 0000001b dc956a00 fa14a7b4 
>>> dc956a00 d55e6f30 c109478e dc956a00 d55e6f40
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] <0> c1087d38 00000013 fa158a5c 
>>> d55e6f4c c1087e32 dc956a00 d55e6f5c c10883c6
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] Call Trace:
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  [<c109478e>] ? 
>>> shrink_dcache_for_umount+0x2d/0x37
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  [<c1087d38>] ? 
>>> generic_shutdown_super+0x15/0xd2
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  [<c1087e32>] ? 
>>> kill_anon_super+0xc/0x43
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  [<c10883c6>] ? 
>>> deactivate_super+0x39/0x4b
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  [<c1098dfd>] ? 
>>> mntput_no_expire+0x8c/0xbb
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  [<c10992df>] ? 
>>> sys_umount+0x299/0x2be
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117]  [<c1002813>] ? 
>>> sysenter_do_call+0x12/0x22
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] Code: 00 89 45 ec 8b 46 10 8b 
>>> 1e 8b 7e 28 85 c0 74 03 8b 50 20 8d 81 64 01 00 00 50 ff 75 ec 53 57 52 56 6
>>> 8 ac 20 2d c1 e8 b5 fc 1b 00 <0f> 0b 83 c4 1c eb fe 8b 7e 1c 39 fe 75 04 31 
>>> ff eb 03 f0 ff 0f
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.620117] EIP: [<c10946ae>] 
>>> shrink_dcache_for_umount_subtree+0x14b/0x1fe SS:ESP 0068:d55e6ef4
>>> Mar 22 16:47:53 coyote kernel: [ 3000.627952] ---[ end trace fbecccbb5fac2d05 
>>> ]

> 
> Looks like the same bug as reported here:
> 
> http://lists.samba.org/archive/linux-cifs-client/2010-February/005560.html
> 
> ...the patch I asked them to test is now here:
> 
> http://git.samba.org/?p=jlayton/linux.git;a=commit;h=fd0ab22278f38b0e2b7d303a1101b15d3255aee9
> 
> ...but I still think the problem is likely in how we autodisable server
> inode numbers.

Yes, I also suspect a problem with autodisabling server inode numbers
esp against OS/2 servers, but I never got around a box or reproduce to
investigate it myself.

Thanks,

-- 
Suresh Jayaraman
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.