From: "Stephen R. van den Berg" <srb@cuci.nl>
To: Chris Murphy <lists@colorremedies.com>
Cc: Btrfs BTRFS <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Kernel traces
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2018 12:52:26 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20181211115226.GA20157@cuci.nl> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAJCQCtQxaAKMP9qSF1UnOG7cy8ya=4MckGt9kL0O8oGxD4fitg@mail.gmail.com>
Chris Murphy wrote:
>I suggest reproducing the problem and issuing sysrq+w and then post
>the entire resulting output for a developer to evaluate. I find it's
I'll give that a try.
>I see this is btrfs-receive workload, so I wouldn't guess it's
>suvolume lock contention unless the contention is happening with a
>single shared parent subvolume into which all the receive subvolumes
>are going (e.g. subvol id 5). I'm not sure how to alleviate it.
Well, machine A has 32GB RAM and is running
multiple simultaneous btrfs-receive instances, but the machine rarely locks up
unless I increase the total reception rate beyond 5MB/s.
Machine B has 8GB RAM and is running at most a single btrfs-receive instance,
but it is much more susceptible to hangups. The maximum reception rate
here is 3MB/s.
In both cases all received subvolumes are created inside the same master
parent (subvol id 5). The only difference is that machine A receives multiple
subvolumes simultaneously, and machine B serialises reception (it basically
receives subvolumes from a single source (machine A)), but the subvolumes here
*are* created back to back (so maybe the previous btrfs-receive is still
late flushing buffers to disk when the new btrfs-receive already starts).
--
Stephen.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-12-11 11:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-12-10 12:05 Kernel traces Stephen R. van den Berg
2018-12-10 16:54 ` Chris Murphy
2018-12-11 11:52 ` Stephen R. van den Berg [this message]
2018-12-12 6:16 ` Chris Murphy
2018-12-12 7:26 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2018-12-12 21:01 ` Chris Murphy
2018-12-28 9:20 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2018-12-28 10:10 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-12-28 13:40 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2018-12-28 13:46 ` Qu Wenruo
2018-12-28 15:00 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2019-01-23 15:50 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2019-01-25 8:01 ` New hang (Re: Kernel traces), sysreq+w output Stephen R. van den Berg
2019-01-25 8:04 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2019-02-05 22:18 ` Stephen R. van den Berg
2019-02-06 0:22 ` Qu Wenruo
2019-02-06 0:36 ` Martin Raiber
2019-07-26 16:31 ` qgroup: Don't trigger backref walk at delayed ref insert time (Re: Kernel traces) Stephen R. van den Berg
2019-07-26 23:24 ` Qu Wenruo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-12-11 15:21 Kernel traces Tomasz Chmielewski
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=20181211115226.GA20157@cuci.nl \
--to=srb@cuci.nl \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lists@colorremedies.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.