Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:50:53 +0100
From:      Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik@gmail.com>
To:        Harald Schmalzbauer <h.schmalzbauer@omnilan.de>
Cc:        freebsd-stable@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: mount lag, umounting returns wrong "Device busy"
Message-ID:  <20130215165052.GA11727@dft-labs.eu>
In-Reply-To: <511E65A4.1050304@omnilan.de>
References:  <511E65A4.1050304@omnilan.de>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 05:43:16PM +0100, Harald Schmalzbauer wrote:
>  Hello,
> 
> while playing with new jail features, I recognized that manually
> umounting doesn't work as I'd expect.
> After jail has been destroyed, the following mountpoint is active:
>     /dev/gpt/jailname1ROOT on /.jail.jailname1 (ufs, local, read-only)
> 
> There was var mounted to /.jail.jailname1/var but that sucessfully umounted.
> 'fstat' also shows no open files in /.jail.jailname1
> 
> But when I do 'umount /.jail.jailname' I get "Device busy" returned.
> Some minutes later umounting works.
> But I always have to wait some time, although nothing is open and
> nothing is mounted above.
> 
> Does anybody have an idea what could cause that false "Device busy"?
> 

My guess is that the jail was not dead yet and it held a reference for
/.jail.jailname1's vnode.

jls -v should show the jail.

I don't know if this can happen, but my guess is that not-yet-expired
network connections hold reference to a jail preventing it from being
destroyed. So I would definitely checkout netstat output. There may be
other posibilities, but nothing obvious comes to my mind at the moment.


-- 
Mateusz Guzik <mjguzik gmail.com>



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130215165052.GA11727>