From: Neil Brown <neilb@suse.de>
To: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>,
Wu@suse.de, "Fengguang <fengguang.wu"@intel.com,
KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"linux-mm@kvack.org" <linux-mm@kvack.org>
Subject: Deadlock possibly caused by too_many_isolated.
Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2010 09:11:18 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100915091118.3dbdc961@notabene> (raw)
Hi,
I recently had a customer (running 2.6.32) report a deadlock during very
intensive IO with lots of processes.
Having looked at the stack traces, my guess as to the problem is this:
There are enough threads in direct_reclaim that too_many_isolated() is
returning true, and so some threads are blocked in shrink_inactive_list.
Those threads that are not blocked there are attempting to do filesystem
writeout. But that is blocked because...
Some threads that are blocked there, hold some IO lock (probably in the
filesystem) and are trying to allocate memory inside the block device
(md/raid1 to be precise) which is allocating with GFP_NOIO and has a
mempool to fall back on.
As these threads don't have __GFP_IO set, they should not really be blocked
both other threads that are doing IO. But it seems they are.
So I'm wondering if the loop in shrink_inactive_list should abort
if __GFP_IO is not set ... and maybe if __GFP_FS is not set too???
Below is a patch that I'm asking the customer to test.
If anyone can point out a flaw in my reasoning, suggest any other
alternatives, provide a better patch, or otherwise help me out here, I
would greatly appreciate it.
(I sent this email to the people mentioned in commit:
commit 35cd78156c499ef83f60605e4643d5a98fef14fd
Author: Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>
Date: Mon Sep 21 17:01:38 2009 -0700
vmscan: throttle direct reclaim when too many pages are isolated already
plus the obvious mail lists)
Thanks,
NeilBrown
Index: linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1/mm/vmscan.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1.orig/mm/vmscan.c 2010-09-15 08:37:32.000000000 +1000
+++ linux-2.6.32-SLE11-SP1/mm/vmscan.c 2010-09-15 08:38:57.000000000 +1000
@@ -1106,6 +1106,11 @@ static unsigned long shrink_inactive_lis
/* We are about to die and free our memory. Return now. */
if (fatal_signal_pending(current))
return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
+ if (!(sc->gfp_mask & __GFP_IO))
+ /* Not allowed to do IO, so mustn't wait
+ * on processes that might try to
+ */
+ return SWAP_CLUSTER_MAX;
}
/*
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next reply other threads:[~2010-09-14 23:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 58+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-09-14 23:11 Neil Brown [this message]
2010-09-15 0:30 ` Deadlock possibly caused by too_many_isolated Rik van Riel
2010-09-15 2:23 ` Neil Brown
2010-09-15 2:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-15 2:54 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-15 3:06 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-15 3:13 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-15 3:18 ` Shaohua Li
2010-09-15 3:31 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-15 3:17 ` Neil Brown
2010-09-15 3:47 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-15 8:28 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-09-15 8:44 ` Neil Brown
2010-10-18 4:14 ` Neil Brown
2010-10-18 5:04 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-18 10:58 ` Torsten Kaiser
2010-10-18 23:11 ` Neil Brown
2010-10-19 8:43 ` Torsten Kaiser
2010-10-19 10:06 ` Torsten Kaiser
2010-10-20 5:57 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-20 7:05 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-20 9:27 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-20 13:03 ` Jens Axboe
2010-10-22 5:37 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-22 8:07 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-22 8:09 ` Jens Axboe
2010-10-24 16:52 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-25 6:40 ` Neil Brown
2010-10-25 7:26 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-20 7:25 ` Torsten Kaiser
2010-10-20 9:01 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-20 10:07 ` Torsten Kaiser
2010-10-20 14:23 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-20 15:35 ` Torsten Kaiser
2010-10-20 23:31 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-18 16:15 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-18 21:58 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-18 22:31 ` Neil Brown
2010-10-18 22:41 ` Andrew Morton
2010-10-19 0:57 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 1:15 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-19 1:21 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 1:32 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-19 2:03 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 2:16 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-19 2:54 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 2:35 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-19 2:52 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-19 3:05 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-19 3:09 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-19 3:13 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 5:11 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-19 3:21 ` Shaohua Li
2010-10-19 7:15 ` Shaohua Li
2010-10-19 7:34 ` Minchan Kim
2010-10-19 2:24 ` Wu Fengguang
2010-10-19 2:37 ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-10-19 2:37 ` Minchan Kim
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=20100915091118.3dbdc961@notabene \
--to=neilb@suse.de \
--cc="Fengguang <fengguang.wu"@intel.com \
--cc=Wu@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=riel@redhat.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).