From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue Apr 12 12:01:57 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E645F16A4CE
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:01:57 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (217-ip-163.nccn.net [209.79.217.163])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6F3F643D5E
	for <current@FreeBSD.org>; Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:01:57 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2])
	by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j3CC1nZ1035643;
	Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:53 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org)
Message-Id: <200504121201.j3CC1nZ1035643@gw.catspoiler.org>
Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 05:01:49 -0700 (PDT)
From: Don Lewis <truckman@FreeBSD.org>
To: kris@obsecurity.org
In-Reply-To: <20050412035111.GA31366@xor.obsecurity.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
cc: current@FreeBSD.org
Subject: Re: Softupdates not preventing lengthy fsck
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:01:58 -0000

On 11 Apr, Kris Kennaway wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 11, 2005 at 06:43:17PM -0700, Don Lewis wrote:
>> On 11 Apr, Kris Kennaway wrote:
>> > I'm seeing the following problem: on 6.0 machines which have had a lot
>> > of FS activity in the past but are currently quiet, an unclean reboot
>> > will require an hour or more of fscking and will end up clearing
>> > thousands of inodes:
>> > 
>> > [...]
>> > /dev/da0s1e: UNREF FILE I=269731  OWNER=root MODE=100644
>> > /dev/da0s1e: SIZE=8555 MTIME=Apr 18 02:29 2002  (CLEARED)
>> 
>> > /dev/da0s1e: UNREF FILE I=269741  OWNER=root MODE=100644
>> > [...]
>> > 
>> > It's as if dirty buffers aren't being written out properly, or
>> > something.  Has anyone else seen this?
>> 
>> This looks a lot like it could be a vnode refcnt leak.  Files won't get
>> removed from the disk while they are still in use (the old unlink while
>> open trick).  Could nullfs be a factor?
> 
> Yes, I make extensive use of read-only nullfs.
> 
> Kris (fsck still running)

It would also be interesting to find out why fsck is taking so long to
run.  I don't see anything obvious in the code.