linux-raid.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Gabriele Trombetti <gabriele.trombetti@itb.cnr.it>
To: linux-raid <linux-raid@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: md data-check causes soft lockup
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:35:09 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4AB926ED.4010900@itb.cnr.it> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090922151925.GA20382@cthulhu.home.robinhill.me.uk>

Robin Hill wrote:
> On Tue Sep 22, 2009 at 07:59:45AM -0700, Lee Howard wrote:
>
>   
>> Majed B. wrote:
>>     
>>> I must have missed that part. It may not work for your case, but worth trying.
>>>
>>> Perhaps Neil Brown, or someone involved could shed some light on this.
>>>
>>> If I remember correctly, those soft lockups were harmless anyway.
>>>   
>>>       
>> Not harmless for production use.  Yes, data is not harmed, and yes, the 
>> problem state does recover when the data-check finishes, but during the 
>> data-check the system is virtually unresponsive and all other use of the 
>> system is stalled.
>>
>>     
> Are you sure this is caused by these soft lockups, and that you're not
> just running with too high a /sys/block/mdX/md/sync_speed_max setting?
> I've had issues with this on some servers, where the I/O demand for the
> sync/check is causing the system to become totally unresponsive.
>   

That's correct for me in the sense that lowering sync_speed_max solves
the problem, see my post, however I'd call it a bug if a value of
sync_speed_max too high starves the system forever. The resync is
supposed to be less prioritarian than normal I/O disk operations, but it
doesn't happen this way. Also note that lowering the value of
stripe_cache_size also solves the problem: how would this fit into your
reasoning?

(BTW I have not checked the mentioned patch yet, I'm not sure I can do
that in a short time because our servers are into production now)


  reply	other threads:[~2009-09-22 19:35 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-09-21 18:08 md data-check causes soft lockup Lee Howard
2009-09-21 18:54 ` Majed B.
2009-09-22 14:43   ` Lee Howard
2009-09-22 14:48     ` Majed B.
2009-09-22 14:59       ` Lee Howard
2009-09-22 15:13         ` Majed B.
2009-09-22 15:19         ` Robin Hill
2009-09-22 19:35           ` Gabriele Trombetti [this message]
2009-09-23  0:16             ` Majed B.
2009-09-23  1:05               ` Guy Watkins
2009-09-21 19:13 ` kwick
2009-09-25  6:54 ` Neil Brown
2009-09-25 11:01   ` kwick
2009-09-25 11:23     ` NeilBrown

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=4AB926ED.4010900@itb.cnr.it \
    --to=gabriele.trombetti@itb.cnr.it \
    --cc=linux-raid@vger.kernel.org \
    /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).