On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 09:57:01AM +0300, Nikolay Borisov wrote: > > > On 16.05.19 г. 0:36 ч., Zygo Blaxell wrote: > > "Storm-of-soft-lockups" is a failure mode where btrfs puts all of the > > CPU cores in kernel functions that are unable to make forward progress, > > but also unwilling to release their respective CPU cores. This is > > usually accompanied by a lot of CPU usage (detectable as either kvm CPU > > usage or just a lot of CPU fan noise) though I don't know if all cores > > are spinning or only some of them. > > > > The kernel console presents a continual stream of "BUG: soft lockup" > > warnings for some days. None of the call traces change during this time. > > The only way out is to reboot. > > > > You can reproduce this by writing a bunch of data to a filesystem while > > bees is running on all cores. It takes a few days to occur naturally. > > It can probably be sped up by just doing a bunch of random LOGICAL_INO > > ioctls in a tight loop on each core. > > > > Here's an instance on a 4-CPU VM where CPU#0 is running btrfs-transaction > > (btrfs_try_tree_write_lock) and CPU#1-3 are running the LOGICAL_INO > > ioctl (btrfs_tree_read_lock_atomic): > > > Provide output of all sleeping threads when this occur via > echo w > /proc/sysrq-trigger. The machine is dead in this state--it doesn't respond to pings or serial port input, and can't run a shell. The serial console doesn't respond to BREAK-w either. Those per-CPU stack traces every 22 seconds are all I get, and also the only indication the system is not completely stopped. The per-CPU stack traces do continue for days, and never report any processes running other than those four. > Also do you have this patch on the affected machine: > > 38e3eebff643 ("btrfs: honor path->skip_locking in backref code") can you > try and test with it applied ? I have that patch applied already from when I was collecting deadlock fixes earlier this year. I have observations of storm-of-soft-lockups going back to at least 4.14 (it is #5 out of the 6 most common ways 4.14.y kernels fail). So it is not a new bug. > >