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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox