From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu May  1 18:28:12 2014
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: fs@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org
 [IPv6:2001:1900:2254:206a::19:1])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA751DFB
 for <fs@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 May 2014 18:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (chez.mckusick.com
 [IPv6:2001:5a8:4:7e72:4a5b:39ff:fe12:452])
 (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B60391BDF
 for <fs@freebsd.org>; Thu,  1 May 2014 18:28:12 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from chez.mckusick.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by chez.mckusick.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id s41IRSpS010249;
 Thu, 1 May 2014 11:27:28 -0700 (PDT)
 (envelope-from mckusick@chez.mckusick.com)
Message-Id: <201405011827.s41IRSpS010249@chez.mckusick.com>
To: fs@freebsd.org, David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>
Subject: Re: SU+J: 185 processes in state "suspfs" for >8 hrs. ... not good,
 right? 
In-reply-to: <20140501182057.GJ1120@albert.catwhisker.org> 
Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 11:27:28 -0700
From: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: Filesystems <freebsd-fs.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-fs>,
 <mailto:freebsd-fs-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 18:28:12 -0000

> Date: Thu, 1 May 2014 11:20:57 -0700
> From: David Wolfskill <david@catwhisker.org>
> To: Kirk McKusick <mckusick@mckusick.com>
> Cc: fs@freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: SU+J: 185 processes in state "suspfs" for >8 hrs. ... not good,
>  right?
> 
> On Thu, May 01, 2014 at 09:51:43AM -0700, Kirk McKusick wrote:
> 
>> Let me know if it helps your problem. If it does, I will MFC it to 9.
>> There have been several other fixes made to SU+J that are more likely
>> to be the cause of your problem, but they are not easily back-ported
>> to stable/9. So if this does not fix your problem my only suggestions
>> are to turn off journaling or move to running on stable/10.
>> ...
> 
> Hrrrmmm...  Looks as if the above reflects stable/10's r251171 (in
> particular, "Convert the bufobj lock to rwlock.") -- stable/9 doesn't
> seem to know about BO_LOCKPTR(), and gcc makes some assumptions.  That
> doesn't turn out well.
> 
> I think that migrating to stable/10 might make more sense than figuring
> out how to fix this, especially if there are other causes of the
> observed failure that are fixed in stable/10.
> 
> Thanks....
> 
> Peace,
> david
> --
> David H. Wolfskill				david@catwhisker.org
> Taliban: Evil cowards with guns afraid of truth from a 14-year old girl.
> 
> See http://www.catwhisker.org/~david/publickey.gpg for my public key.

I think that you have now discovered why Jeff did not MFC to stable/9.
You are correct that putting in this fix requires seriously more work.
Sorry about sending you down that path.

	Kirk McKusick