From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: NeilBrown Subject: Re: raid5 lockups post ca64cae96037de16e4af92678814f5d4bf0c1c65 Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 11:55:18 +1100 Message-ID: <20130320115518.3f5afb71@notabene.brown> References: <20130305080010.6285b435@notabene.brown> <20130306131804.0b39752a@notabene.brown> <20130312093231.72c54735@notabene.brown> <20130312123224.62018981@notabene.brown> <20130313103513.350f24f7@notabene.brown> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=PGP-SHA1; boundary="Sig_/pWhF0dWr2Sps.14KXpeYaSo"; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-raid-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Jes Sorensen Cc: linux-raid@vger.kernel.org, Shaohua Li , Eryu Guan List-Id: linux-raid.ids --Sig_/pWhF0dWr2Sps.14KXpeYaSo Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 14 Mar 2013 08:35:05 +0100 Jes Sorensen wrote: > NeilBrown writes: > > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 14:45:44 +0100 Jes Sorensen > > wrote: > > > >> NeilBrown writes: > >> > On Tue, 12 Mar 2013 09:32:31 +1100 NeilBrown wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Wed, 06 Mar 2013 10:31:55 +0100 Jes Sorensen > >> >> wrote: > >> >>=20 > >> > > >> >> >=20 > >> >> > I am attaching the test script I am running too. It was written b= y Eryu > >> >> > Guan. > >> >>=20 > >> >> Thanks for that. I've tried using it but haven't managed to trigge= r a BUG > >> >> yet. What size are the loop files? I mostly use fairly small ones= , but > >> >> maybe it needs to be bigger to trigger the problem. > >> > > >> > Shortly after I wrote that I got a bug-on! It hasn't happened again= though. > >> > > >> > This was using code without that latest patch I sent. The bug was > >> > BUG_ON(s->uptodate !=3D disks); > >> > > >> > in the check_state_compute_result case of handle_parity_checks5() wh= ich is > >> > probably the same cause as your most recent BUG. > >> > > >> > I've revised my thinking a bit and am now running with this patch wh= ich I > >> > think should fix a problem that probably caused the symptoms we have= seen. > >> > > >> > If you could run your tests for a while too and is whether it will > >> > still crash > >> > for you, I'd really appreciate it. > >>=20 > >> Hi Neil, > >>=20 > >> Sorry I can't verify the line numbers of my old test since I managed to > >> mess up my git tree in the process :( > >>=20 > >> However running with this new patch I have just hit another but > >> different case. Looks like a deadlock. > > > > You test setup is clearly different from mine. I've been running all n= ight > > without a single hiccup. > > > >>=20 > >> This is basically running ca64cae96037de16e4af92678814f5d4bf0c1c65 with > >> your patch applied on top, and nothing else. > >>=20 > >> If you want me to try a more uptodate Linus tree, please let me know. > >>=20 > >> Cheers, > >> Jes > >>=20 > >>=20 > >> [17635.205927] INFO: task mkfs.ext4:20060 blocked for more than 120 se= conds. > >> [17635.213543] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" > >> disables this message. > >> [17635.222291] mkfs.ext4 D ffff880236814100 0 20060 20026 0x00000080 > >> [17635.230199] ffff8801bc8bbb98 0000000000000082 ffff88022f0be540 > >> ffff8801bc8bbfd8 > >> [17635.238518] ffff8801bc8bbfd8 ffff8801bc8bbfd8 ffff88022d47b2a0 > >> ffff88022f0be540 > >> [17635.246837] ffff8801cea1f430 000000000001d5f0 ffff8801c7f4f430 > >> ffff88022169a400 > >> [17635.255161] Call Trace: > >> [17635.257891] [] schedule+0x29/0x70 > >> [17635.263433] [] make_request+0x6da/0x6f0 [raid456] > >> [17635.270525] [] ? wake_up_bit+0x40/0x40 > >> [17635.276560] [] md_make_request+0xc3/0x200 > >> [17635.282884] [] ? mempool_alloc_slab+0x15/0x20 > >> [17635.289586] [] generic_make_request+0xc2/0x110 > >> [17635.296393] [] submit_bio+0x79/0x160 > >> [17635.302232] [] ? bio_alloc_bioset+0x65/0x120 > >> [17635.308844] [] blkdev_issue_discard+0x184/0x240 > >> [17635.315748] [] blkdev_ioctl+0x3b6/0x810 > >> [17635.321877] [] block_ioctl+0x41/0x50 > >> [17635.327714] [] do_vfs_ioctl+0x99/0x580 > >> [17635.333745] [] ? > >> inode_has_perm.isra.30.constprop.60+0x2a/0x30 > >> [17635.342103] [] ? file_has_perm+0x97/0xb0 > >> [17635.348329] [] sys_ioctl+0x91/0xb0 > >> [17635.353972] [] ? __audit_syscall_exit+0x3ec/0x450 > >> [17635.361070] [] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b > > > > There is a small race in the exclusion between discard and recovery. > > This patch on top should fix it (I hope). > > Thanks for testing. >=20 > Ok I spent most of yesterday running tests on this. With this additional > patch applied I haven't been able to reproduce the hang so far - without > it I could do it in about an hour, so I suspect it solves the problem. >=20 > Thanks! > Jes Thanks. I'll get the queued for Linus and -stable shortly. NeilBrown --Sig_/pWhF0dWr2Sps.14KXpeYaSo Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Disposition: attachment; filename=signature.asc -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iQIVAwUBUUkI9jnsnt1WYoG5AQKuIg//Rj4zUk2VQYq4n2XjkkNAV0e8+RCsdcl8 VG8j1YMs38E87dME1OSTEyTgzR7NxsuwBQyWDoZk79V/2XB0AQ9KzcoIDwVr2k2G l5ww+1WMstPWv24a93wf8j+N6SsMBc1eXd22jdT55dGSgb0u8H/Qa4TfZIi8cspN 1/C9CottQtaCMBiryKP98mkpnemGwBziSn7zqtK+NKX0D6Fa1sIbswFV8bu8QHRA 16xPh66b1snj201jtrtJ8MCRlCvWKtz840lQfnKUO2ThedJpWj0d7xcfESiB0wK6 GYEmfQpyVjv1ZtkjybInwOrXs0cUs9SCiMTZAFkzGvKaNxDzrV2b5QqL/mkfMzHp te6djnNxnMFQWwIEA4XRzUF4eqsDNdtd/S8PDJFnWxw9dqaYM1+WAqsIQ81PGSL0 jsJrEjrqieAUrVbuAiA8nypd/+zsOJjWJMut7NnYHYfL6bL/w/UduJELxa9J0GHp PLiVmkc3yGcsWaoiQ8FGjO/p8SaNRXX3gMVxg+OyvDrlzvLmyA9lKqKkuMyngKCw 5j6991Qi4iAtUsZeGUbNIDTlbu6o+BuBlXRcXuQn2ICALZIIPTL8jDmGUjXsOhe8 0S66eLbVGmD3U6F7sWSVE0RTLpUciDS9kI4iPtSyQ5HCuVqBq4ctSCXaqf0S6mkD rlu84kYCB3g= =A74T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Sig_/pWhF0dWr2Sps.14KXpeYaSo--