Re: btrfs-progs reports nonsense scrub status

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 15/05/2020 03:37, Andrew Pam wrote:
> On 15/5/20 2:18 am, Graham Cobb wrote:
>> Try scrub resume restarts the scrub and backgrounds it. Maybe there is
>> something strange about background processes created in the restore
>> script. What happens if you specify "-B" on the resume?
> 
> Then the resume does not occur.  After the resume from suspend-to-RAM,
> no "btrfs" process is running and the status still shows as "aborted".
> This suggests that the "btrfs resume -B" fails when run from within the
> systemd post-resume script.

Maybe something special about the post-resume script. Have you tried not
resuming the scrub in the systemd script but doing it by hand after
everything has settled down?

> 
>> Try adding a sleep after the cancel (or logic to see if the scrub
>> process has actually exited).
> 
> I tried adding both "killall -s0 -w btrfs" and "sleep 5" - even with
> these changes, the "btrfs resume" (without -B option) once again shows
> "last_physical: 0"

Oh well, worth a try.

Did you try running the resume using my logging patch? Was the 0 for
last_physical definitely being returned from the kernel in the ioctl
response? It may mean running it manually (or redirecting stderr to a file).

Graham



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux