From: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS read hangs in 3.1-rc10
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:28:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111021202857.GB30100@hostway.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111021132240.GA24136@infradead.org>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:22:40AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> >
> > [<ffffffff8126f205>] xfs_reclaim_inode+0x85/0x2b0
> > [<ffffffff8126f5b0>] xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x180/0x2f0
> > [<ffffffff8126f74e>] xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x2e/0x40
> > [<ffffffff8126ccf0>] xfs_fs_free_cached_objects+0x10/0x20
> > [<ffffffff81119a70>] prune_super+0x110/0x1b0
> > [<ffffffff810e4fa5>] shrink_slab+0x1e5/0x2a0
> > [<ffffffff810e5821>] kswapd+0x7c1/0xba0
> > [<ffffffff8107ada6>] kthread+0x96/0xb0
> > [<ffffffff816c0474>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>
> We're stuck in synchronous inode reclaim.
>
> > All of the other processes that get stuck have this stack:
> >
> > [<ffffffff81080587>] down+0x47/0x50
> > [<ffffffff8125e816>] xfs_buf_lock+0x66/0xd0
> > [<ffffffff812603ad>] _xfs_buf_find+0x16d/0x270
> > [<ffffffff81260517>] xfs_buf_get+0x67/0x1a0
> > [<ffffffff8126067a>] xfs_buf_read+0x2a/0x120
> > [<ffffffff812b876f>] xfs_trans_read_buf+0x28f/0x3f0
> > [<ffffffff8129e161>] xfs_read_agi+0x71/0x100
>
> They are waiting for the AGI buffer to become unlocked. The only reason
> it is held locked for longer time is when it is under I/O.
>
> >
> > By the way, xfs_reclaim_inode+0x85 (133) disassembles as:
>
> >
> > ...So the next function is wait_for_completion(), which is marked
> > __sched and thus doesn't show up in the trace.
>
> So we're waiting for the inode to be flushed, aka I/O again.
But I don't seem to see any queued I/O, hmm.
> What is interesting here is that we're always blocking on the AGI
> buffer - which is used during unlinks of inodes, and thus gets hit
> fairly heavily for a workload that does a lot of unlinks.
I don't think we do too many unlinks, but there are quite a bit of
renames over existing files (dovecot-2.0 w/mdbox).
> > When the clog happens, "iostat -x -k 1" shows no reads from the XFS
> > devices, though writes keep happening. "vmstat 1" matches. I tried
> > switching schedulers from CFQ to deadline -- no difference. Queue depth
> > is empty on the devices and nothing is actually clogged up at the device
> > -- it's not actually plugged at the controller or disk. I did a sysreq-w
> > while this was happening. About 10 seconds later, everything unclogs and
> > continues. Sysreq-W output below. I poked around at the various XFS
> > tracepoints in /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/xfs, but I'm not sure
> > which tracepoints to use and many of them scroll too fast to see
> > anything. Any suggestions?
>
> Given that you are doing a lot of unlinks I wonder if it is related
> to the recent ail pushing issues in that area. While your symptoms
> looks completely different we could be blocking on the flush completion
> for an inode that gets stuck in the AIL.
>
> Can you run with latest 3.0-stable plus the patches at:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2011-October/053464.html
>
> If this doesn't help I'll probably need to come up with some tracing
> patches for you.
It seemes 3.0.7+gregkh's stable-queue queue-3.0 patches seems to be
running fine without blocking at all on this SSD box, so that should
narrow it down significantly.
Hmm, looking at git diff --stat v3.0.7..v3.1-rc10 fs/xfs , maybe not.. :)
Maybe 3.1 fs/xfs would transplant into 3.0 or vice-versa?
Simon-
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: XFS read hangs in 3.1-rc10
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 13:28:57 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20111021202857.GB30100@hostway.ca> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20111021132240.GA24136@infradead.org>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 09:22:40AM -0400, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 03:42:14PM -0700, Simon Kirby wrote:
> >
> > [<ffffffff8126f205>] xfs_reclaim_inode+0x85/0x2b0
> > [<ffffffff8126f5b0>] xfs_reclaim_inodes_ag+0x180/0x2f0
> > [<ffffffff8126f74e>] xfs_reclaim_inodes_nr+0x2e/0x40
> > [<ffffffff8126ccf0>] xfs_fs_free_cached_objects+0x10/0x20
> > [<ffffffff81119a70>] prune_super+0x110/0x1b0
> > [<ffffffff810e4fa5>] shrink_slab+0x1e5/0x2a0
> > [<ffffffff810e5821>] kswapd+0x7c1/0xba0
> > [<ffffffff8107ada6>] kthread+0x96/0xb0
> > [<ffffffff816c0474>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
> > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
>
> We're stuck in synchronous inode reclaim.
>
> > All of the other processes that get stuck have this stack:
> >
> > [<ffffffff81080587>] down+0x47/0x50
> > [<ffffffff8125e816>] xfs_buf_lock+0x66/0xd0
> > [<ffffffff812603ad>] _xfs_buf_find+0x16d/0x270
> > [<ffffffff81260517>] xfs_buf_get+0x67/0x1a0
> > [<ffffffff8126067a>] xfs_buf_read+0x2a/0x120
> > [<ffffffff812b876f>] xfs_trans_read_buf+0x28f/0x3f0
> > [<ffffffff8129e161>] xfs_read_agi+0x71/0x100
>
> They are waiting for the AGI buffer to become unlocked. The only reason
> it is held locked for longer time is when it is under I/O.
>
> >
> > By the way, xfs_reclaim_inode+0x85 (133) disassembles as:
>
> >
> > ...So the next function is wait_for_completion(), which is marked
> > __sched and thus doesn't show up in the trace.
>
> So we're waiting for the inode to be flushed, aka I/O again.
But I don't seem to see any queued I/O, hmm.
> What is interesting here is that we're always blocking on the AGI
> buffer - which is used during unlinks of inodes, and thus gets hit
> fairly heavily for a workload that does a lot of unlinks.
I don't think we do too many unlinks, but there are quite a bit of
renames over existing files (dovecot-2.0 w/mdbox).
> > When the clog happens, "iostat -x -k 1" shows no reads from the XFS
> > devices, though writes keep happening. "vmstat 1" matches. I tried
> > switching schedulers from CFQ to deadline -- no difference. Queue depth
> > is empty on the devices and nothing is actually clogged up at the device
> > -- it's not actually plugged at the controller or disk. I did a sysreq-w
> > while this was happening. About 10 seconds later, everything unclogs and
> > continues. Sysreq-W output below. I poked around at the various XFS
> > tracepoints in /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/xfs, but I'm not sure
> > which tracepoints to use and many of them scroll too fast to see
> > anything. Any suggestions?
>
> Given that you are doing a lot of unlinks I wonder if it is related
> to the recent ail pushing issues in that area. While your symptoms
> looks completely different we could be blocking on the flush completion
> for an inode that gets stuck in the AIL.
>
> Can you run with latest 3.0-stable plus the patches at:
>
> http://oss.sgi.com/pipermail/xfs/2011-October/053464.html
>
> If this doesn't help I'll probably need to come up with some tracing
> patches for you.
It seemes 3.0.7+gregkh's stable-queue queue-3.0 patches seems to be
running fine without blocking at all on this SSD box, so that should
narrow it down significantly.
Hmm, looking at git diff --stat v3.0.7..v3.1-rc10 fs/xfs , maybe not.. :)
Maybe 3.1 fs/xfs would transplant into 3.0 or vice-versa?
Simon-
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-10-21 20:29 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-10-20 22:42 XFS read hangs in 3.1-rc10 Simon Kirby
2011-10-20 22:42 ` Simon Kirby
2011-10-21 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-10-21 13:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-10-21 20:28 ` Simon Kirby [this message]
2011-10-21 20:28 ` Simon Kirby
2011-10-24 8:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-10-24 8:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-10-25 20:07 ` Simon Kirby
2011-10-25 20:07 ` Simon Kirby
2011-10-26 11:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-10-26 11:25 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-04 21:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-04 21:03 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-16 19:56 ` Simon Kirby
2011-11-16 19:56 ` Simon Kirby
2011-11-20 15:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-20 15:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-28 19:05 ` Simon Kirby
2011-11-28 19:05 ` Simon Kirby
2011-11-28 19:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-28 19:55 ` Christoph Hellwig
2011-11-28 21:01 ` Ben Myers
2011-11-28 21:01 ` Ben Myers
2011-10-21 20:29 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
2011-10-21 20:29 ` Markus Trippelsdorf
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=20111021202857.GB30100@hostway.ca \
--to=sim@hostway.ca \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.