All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Michael Breuer <mbreuer@majjas.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Hung task - sync - 2.6.33-rc7  w/md6 multicore rebuild in process
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:05:17 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100219210517.GF28392@discord.disaster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B7E2221.4020009@majjas.com>

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:31:13AM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 11:02 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:31:41PM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote:
>>    
>>> On 2/18/2010 8:43 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>      
>>>>
>>>> This is probably where the barrier IOs are coming from.  With a RAID
>>>> resync going on (so all IO is going to be slow to begin with) and
>>>> writeback is causing barriers to be issued (which are really slow on
>>>> software RAID5/6), having sync take so long is not out of the
>>>> question if you have lots of dirty inodes to write back. A kernel
>>>> compile will generate lots of dirty inodes.
>>>>
>>>> Even taking the barrier IOs out of the question, I've seen reports
>>>> of sync or unmount taking over 10 hours to complete on software
>>>> RAID5 because there were hundreds of thousands of dirty inodes to
>>>> write back and each inode being written back caused a synchronous
>>>> RAID5 RMW cycle to occur. Hence writeback could only clean 50
>>>> inodes/sec because as soon as RMW cycles RAID5/6 devices start
>>>> they go slower than single spindle devices.  This sounds very
>>>> similar to what you are seeing here,
>>>>
>>>> i.e. The reports don't indicate to me that there is a bug in the
>>>> writeback code, just your disk subsystem has very, very low
>>>> throughput in these conditions....
>>>>        
>>> Probably true... and the system does recover. The only thing I'd point
>>> out is that the subsystem isn't (or perhaps shouldn't) be this sluggish.
>>> I hypothesize that the low throughput under these condition is a result
>>> of:
>>> 1) multicore raid support (pushing the resync at higher rates)
>>>      
>> Possibly, though barrier support for RAID5/6 is shiny new as well.
>>
>>    
>>> 2) time spent in fs cache reclaim. The sync slowdown only occurs when fs
>>> cache is in heavy (10Gb) use.
>>>      
>> Not surprising ;)
>>
>>    
>>> I actually could not recreate the issue until I did a grep -R foo /usr/
>>>      
>>>> /dev/null to force high fs cache utilization. For what it's worth, two
>>>>        
>>> kernel rebuilds (many dirty inodes) and then a sync with about 12Mb
>>> dirty (/proc/meminfo) didn't cause an issue. The issue only happens when
>>> fs cache is heavily used. I also never saw this before enabling
>>> multicore raid.
>>>      
>> "grep -R foo /usr/" will dirty every inode that touchs (atime) and
>> they have to be written back out. That's almost certainly creating
>> more dirty inodes than a kernel build - there are about 400,000
>> inodes under /usr on my system. That would be enough to trigger very
>> long sync times if inode writeback is slow.
>
> My filesystems are mounted relatime.

If the inode atime is older than a day, then they will still
have atime updated (i.e. be dirtied) and need writing out. Relatime
only reduces the number of atime updates; it doesn't prevent them
entirely like noatime does.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply	other threads:[~2010-02-19 21:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-13 16:51 Hung task - sync - 2.6.33-rc7 w/md6 multicore rebuild in process Michael Breuer
2010-02-13 17:09 ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-13 18:16 ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-18  2:39   ` Jan Kara
2010-02-18  2:51     ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-18 17:11     ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-19  1:43       ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-19  2:31         ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-19  4:02           ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-19  5:31             ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-19 21:05               ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-04-02 11:01 ` Pozsar Balazs
2010-04-02 13:58   ` mbreuer
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-02-13 16:37 Michael Breuer
2010-02-13 16:17 Michael Breuer

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20100219210517.GF28392@discord.disaster \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbreuer@majjas.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.