Re: next-20090310: ext4 hangs

[Alexander Beregalov <a.beregalov@gmail.com>]

2009/3/31 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>:
> On Thu 26-03-09 01:38:32, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> 2009/3/25 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>:
>> > On Wed 25-03-09 20:07:46, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> >> 2009/3/25 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>:
>> >> > On Wed 25-03-09 18:29:10, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> >> >> 2009/3/25 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>:
>> >> >> > On Wed 25-03-09 18:18:43, Alexander Beregalov wrote:
>> >> >> >> 2009/3/25 Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>:
>> >> >> >> >> > So, I think I need to try it on 2.6.29-rc7 again.
>> >> >> >> >>   I've looked into this. Obviously, what's happenning is that we delete
>> >> >> >> >> an inode and jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode() finds inode is just under
>> >> >> >> >> writeout in transaction commit and thus it waits. But it gets never woken
>> >> >> >> >> up and because it has a handle from the transaction, every one eventually
>> >> >> >> >> blocks on waiting for a transaction to finish.
>> >> >> >> >>   But I don't really see how that can happen. The code is really
>> >> >> >> >> straightforward and everything happens under j_list_lock... Strange.
>> >> >> >> >  BTW: Is the system SMP?
>> >> >> >> No, it is UP system.
>> >> >> >  Even stranger. And do you have CONFIG_PREEMPT set?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> The bug exists even in 2.6.29, I posted it with a new topic.
>> >> >> >  OK, I've sort-of expected this.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU=y
>> >> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT_RCU_TRACE=y
>> >> >> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE is not set
>> >> >> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY is not set
>> >> >> CONFIG_PREEMPT=y
>> >> >> CONFIG_DEBUG_PREEMPT=y
>> >> >> # CONFIG_PREEMPT_TRACER is not set
>> >> >>
>> >> >> config is attached.
>> >> >  Thanks for the data. I still don't see how the wakeup can get lost. The
>> >> > process even cannot be preempted when we are in the section protected by
>> >> > j_list_lock... Can you send me a disassembly of functions
>> >> > jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode() and journal_submit_data_buffers() so that
>> >> > I can see whether the compiler has not reordered something unexpectedly?
>> >  Thanks for the disassembly...
>> >
>> >> By default gcc inlines journal_submit_data_buffers()
>> >> Here is -fno-inline version. Default version is in attach.
>  <snip>
>
>  I'm helpless here. I don't see how we can miss a wakeup (plus you seem to
> be the only one reporting the bug). Could you please compile and test the kernel
> with the attached patch? It will print to kernel log when we go to sleep
> waiting for inode commit and when we send wakeups etc. When you hit the
> deadlock, please send me your kernel log. It should help with debugging why do
> we miss the wakeup. Thanks.

Which patch?