* fs: clear_inode failed with nrpages not zero!
@ 2014-02-26 8:40 hitmoon
2014-02-26 12:31 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: hitmoon @ 2014-02-26 8:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-fsdevel; +Cc: Andrew Morton, jack, hannes
Hi all:
I am running a redhat 2.6.32-279 offical kernel. Under heavy work
load and memory pressure, in my case, running ltp test for about 20
hours, kernel oops happened. Say concretely, a testcase process open a
file, truncate to 128M, mmap, munmap and close the file, this circle
repeatedly when kernel hangs. Through the vmcore, I also find it hangs
at: BUG_ON(inode->i_data.nrpages) in function clear_inode, which means
the truncate_inode_pages faild to decrase nrpages to 0. I have google
this problem and find no clear solutions but make me confused. The
comment of function truncate_inode_pages says that after it return, the
nrpages may not be zero.
My understanding is: the page reclaime migth still in the process
of deletion of the page. Jan Kara once post a patch, which use spin_lock
to sync the radix tree and nrpages. This kernel already contains this
patch. Then problem come: When kernel hangs, the nrpages is not a small
number like 1 or 2, but a bigger one, more than 500 or 700! So I think
even we take some sync measures before clear inode, the function
truncate_inode_pages together with other reclaim functions failed to set
nrpages to zero. By dump the vmcore, I also find the radix tree is also
not empty but with some slots left.
Then I think:
1. The fault might happen at pagevec_lookup, which return no page
even the radix tree is in fact not empty. Because lookup uses the rcu
lock, is it possible a race condition
happened in the lookup process and lead the function return
unexpectedly? If possiable, how dose it happened ?
2. I find Johannes Weiner post a
patch(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg72395.html), which
has following code:
+ if (nrpages || nrshadows) {
+ /*
+ * As truncation uses a lockless tree lookup, cycle
+ * the tree lock to make sure any ongoing tree
+ * modification that does not see AS_EXITING is
+ * completed before starting the final truncate.
+ */
+ spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
+ spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
+
+ truncate_inode_pages(mapping, 0);
+ }
which wrapped the truncate_inode_pages in function
truncate_inode_pages_final. Does it make sence to my problem ?
Any suggestion will be appreciated!
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: fs: clear_inode failed with nrpages not zero!
2014-02-26 8:40 fs: clear_inode failed with nrpages not zero! hitmoon
@ 2014-02-26 12:31 ` Jan Kara
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: Jan Kara @ 2014-02-26 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: hitmoon; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, Andrew Morton, jack, hannes
Hello,
On Wed 26-02-14 16:40:44, hitmoon wrote:
> I am running a redhat 2.6.32-279 offical kernel.
Well, in that case you should consider contacting RH support instead of
general community forum... Also 2.6.32 is pretty old and RH (similarly as
other enterprise distributors) has lots of stuff added on top of it. So it
is hard to help you.
> Under heavy work load and memory pressure, in my case, running ltp test
> for about 20 hours, kernel oops happened. Say concretely, a testcase
> process open a file, truncate to 128M, mmap, munmap and close the file,
> this circle repeatedly when kernel hangs. Through the vmcore, I also find
> it hangs at: BUG_ON(inode->i_data.nrpages) in function clear_inode, which
> means the truncate_inode_pages faild to decrase nrpages to 0. I have
> google this problem and find no clear solutions but make me confused. The
> comment of function truncate_inode_pages says that after it return, the
> nrpages may not be zero.
>
> My understanding is: the page reclaime migth still in the
> process of deletion of the page. Jan Kara once post a patch, which
> use spin_lock to sync the radix tree and nrpages. This kernel
> already contains this patch. Then problem come: When kernel hangs,
> the nrpages is not a small number like 1 or 2, but a bigger one,
> more than 500 or 700! So I think even we take some sync measures
> before clear inode, the function truncate_inode_pages together with
> other reclaim functions failed to set nrpages to zero. By dump the
> vmcore, I also find the radix tree is also not empty but with some
> slots left.
>
> Then I think:
> 1. The fault might happen at pagevec_lookup, which return no
> page even the radix tree is in fact not empty. Because lookup uses
> the rcu lock, is it possible a race condition
> happened in the lookup process and lead the function return
> unexpectedly? If possiable, how dose it happened ?
> 2. I find Johannes Weiner post a
> patch(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg72395.html),
> which has following code:
>
> + if (nrpages || nrshadows) {
> + /*
> + * As truncation uses a lockless tree lookup, cycle
> + * the tree lock to make sure any ongoing tree
> + * modification that does not see AS_EXITING is
> + * completed before starting the final truncate.
> + */
> + spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> + spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> +
> + truncate_inode_pages(mapping, 0);
> + }
>
> which wrapped the truncate_inode_pages in function
> truncate_inode_pages_final. Does it make sence to my problem ?
This shouldn't be really related. That is specific to Johannes' patch set
adding new special radix tree entries.
Honza
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: fs: clear_inode failed with nrpages not zero!
@ 2014-02-26 14:44 xiaoqiang zhao
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: xiaoqiang zhao @ 2014-02-26 14:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jan Kara; +Cc: linux-fsdevel, Andrew Morton, hannes
Resend, for gmail android app can not send plain text mail,sorry!
Thanks Kara! I will try to get a better understanding of this problem.
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>编写:
> Hello,
>
>On Wed 26-02-14 16:40:44, hitmoon wrote:
>> I am running a redhat 2.6.32-279 offical kernel.
> Well, in that case you should consider contacting RH support instead of
>general community forum... Also 2.6.32 is pretty old and RH (similarly as
>other enterprise distributors) has lots of stuff added on top of it. So it
>is hard to help you.
>
>> Under heavy work load and memory pressure, in my case, running ltp test
>> for about 20 hours, kernel oops happened. Say concretely, a testcase
>> process open a file, truncate to 128M, mmap, munmap and close the file,
>> this circle repeatedly when kernel hangs. Through the vmcore, I also find
>> it hangs at: BUG_ON(inode->i_data.nrpages) in function clear_inode, which
>> means the truncate_inode_pages faild to decrase nrpages to 0. I have
>> google this problem and find no clear solutions but make me confused. The
>> comment of function truncate_inode_pages says that after it return, the
>> nrpages may not be zero.
>>
>> My understanding is: the page reclaime migth still in the
>> process of deletion of the page. Jan Kara once post a patch, which
>> use spin_lock to sync the radix tree and nrpages. This kernel
>> already contains this patch. Then problem come: When kernel hangs,
>> the nrpages is not a small number like 1 or 2, but a bigger one,
>> more than 500 or 700! So I think even we take some sync measures
>> before clear inode, the function truncate_inode_pages together with
>> other reclaim functions failed to set nrpages to zero. By dump the
>> vmcore, I also find the radix tree is also not empty but with some
>> slots left.
>>
>> Then I think:
>> 1. The fault might happen at pagevec_lookup, which return no
>> page even the radix tree is in fact not empty. Because lookup uses
>> the rcu lock, is it possible a race condition
>> happened in the lookup process and lead the function return
>> unexpectedly? If possiable, how dose it happened ?
>> 2. I find Johannes Weiner post a
>> patch(http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-fsdevel/msg72395.html),
>> which has following code:
>>
>> + if (nrpages || nrshadows) {
>> + /*
>> + * As truncation uses a lockless tree lookup, cycle
>> + * the tree lock to make sure any ongoing tree
>> + * modification that does not see AS_EXITING is
>> + * completed before starting the final truncate.
>> + */
>> + spin_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
>> + spin_unlock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
>> +
>> + truncate_inode_pages(mapping, 0);
>> + }
>>
>> which wrapped the truncate_inode_pages in function
>> truncate_inode_pages_final. Does it make sence to my problem ?
> This shouldn't be really related. That is specific to Johannes' patch set
>adding new special radix tree entries.
>
> Honza
>--
>Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
>SUSE Labs, CR
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2014-02-26 14:44 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2014-02-26 8:40 fs: clear_inode failed with nrpages not zero! hitmoon
2014-02-26 12:31 ` Jan Kara
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2014-02-26 14:44 xiaoqiang zhao
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).