Re: [PATCH 0/15] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v10

["Zhang, Yanmin" <yanmin_zhang@linux.intel.com>]

On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 07:13 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18 2009, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-06-16 at 21:53 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 16 2009, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jun 16 2009, Zhang, Yanmin wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 14:54 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > > Hi,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Here's the 10th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v9:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > - Fix bdi task exit race leaving work on the list, flush it after we
> > > > > >   know we cannot be found anymore.
> > > > > > - Rename flusher tasks from bdi-foo to flush-foo. Should make it more
> > > > > >   clear to the casual observer.
> > > > > > - Fix a problem with the btrfs bdi register patch that would spew
> > > > > >   warnings for > 1 mounted btrfs file system.
> > > > > > - Rebase to current -git, there were some conflicts with the latest work
> > > > > >   from viro/hch.
> > > > > > - Fix a block layer core problem were stacked devices would overwrite
> > > > > >   the bdi state, causing problems and warning spew.
> > > > > > - In bdi_writeback_all(), in the race occurence of a work allocation
> > > > > >   failure, restart scanning from the beginning. Then we can drop the
> > > > > >   bdi_lock mutex before diving into bdi specific writeback.
> > > > > > - Convert bdi_lock to a spinlock.
> > > > > > - Use spin_trylock() in bdi_writeback_all(), if this isn't a data
> > > > > >   integrity writeback. Debatable, I kind of like it...
> > > > > > - Get rid of BDI_CAP_FLUSH_FORKER, just check for match with the
> > > > > >   default_backing_dev_info.
> > > > > > - Fix race in list checking in bdi_forker_task().
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > For ease of patching, I've put the full diff here:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > >   http://kernel.dk/writeback-v10.patch
> > > > > Jens,
> > > > > 
> > > > > I applied the patch to 2.6.30 and got a confliction. The attachment is
> > > > > the patch I ported to 2.6.30. Did I miss anything?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > With the patch, kernel reports below messages on 2 machines.
> > > > > 
> > > > > INFO: task sync:29984 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > > > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > > > sync          D ffff88002805e300  6168 29984  24581
> > > > >  ffff88022f84b780 0000000000000082 7fffffffffffffff ffff880133dbfe70
> > > > >  0000000000000000 ffff88022e2b4c50 ffff88022e2b4fd8 00000001000c7bb8
> > > > >  ffff88022f513fd0 ffff880133dbfde8 ffff880133dbfec8 ffff88022d5d13c8
> > > > > Call Trace:
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b69e4>] ? bdi_sched_wait+0x0/0xd
> > > > >  [<ffffffff80780fde>] ? schedule+0x9/0x1d
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b69ed>] ? bdi_sched_wait+0x9/0xd
> > > > >  [<ffffffff8078158d>] ? __wait_on_bit+0x40/0x6f
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b69e4>] ? bdi_sched_wait+0x0/0xd
> > > > >  [<ffffffff80781628>] ? out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x6c/0x78
> > > > >  [<ffffffff8024a426>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x23
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b67ac>] ? bdi_writeback_all+0x12a/0x152
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b6805>] ? generic_sync_sb_inodes+0x31/0xde
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b6935>] ? sync_inodes_sb+0x83/0x88
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b6980>] ? __sync_inodes+0x46/0x8f
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b94f2>] ? do_sync+0x36/0x5a
> > > > >  [<ffffffff802b9538>] ? sys_sync+0xe/0x12
> > > > >  [<ffffffff8020b9ab>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > > > 
> > > > I don't think it is your backport, for some reason the v10 missed a
> > > > change that I think could solve this race. If not, there's another in
> > > > there that I need to look at.
> > > > 
> > > > So against your current base, could you try with the below added as
> > > > well? The printk() is just so we can see if this triggers for you or
> > > > not.
> > > 
> > > OK that wont work, since we need to actually wait for the work to be
> > > flushed, otherwise we wreak things when we free the bdi immediately
> > > after that.
> > > 
> > > Can you try with this patch?
> > Jens,
> > 
> > I tested below patch on 4 machines (run all fio sub-test cases twice which
> > need more than 10 hours). The previous 2 machines don't stop this time.
> > Unfortunately, the 3rd machine stops. I double-check the disassembled codes
> > of kernel and make sure bdi_start_fn really calls wb_do_writeback.
> 
> Sorry I should have made that more clear when posting v11. This patch
> wont fully solve the problem, however the v11 patch series should. So if
> you test with that, hopefully all soft hangs should be gone.
Ok. I will start new testing against V11. I also add some debugging codes into
V11.