From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cuda.sgi.com (cuda3.sgi.com [192.48.176.15]) by oss.sgi.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/SuSE Linux 0.8) with ESMTP id q120QCZX020014 for ; Wed, 1 Feb 2012 18:26:12 -0600 Received: from ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net (ipmail07.adl2.internode.on.net [150.101.137.131]) by cuda.sgi.com with ESMTP id OfxkbhGHn2dA0CBj for ; Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:26:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from dave by dastard with local (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RskV6-0001lH-6m for xfs@oss.sgi.com; Thu, 02 Feb 2012 11:26:08 +1100 Date: Thu, 2 Feb 2012 11:26:08 +1100 From: Dave Chinner Subject: Re: xfs task blocked for more than 120 seconds Message-ID: <20120202002608.GY9090@dastard> References: <20120130002026.GG10174@sli.dy.fi> <20120130010530.GI15102@dastard> <2504_1327964557_4F27218D_2504_92_2_20120130223527.GH10174@sli.dy.fi> <20120131233034.GK10174@sli.dy.fi> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120131233034.GK10174@sli.dy.fi> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: xfs@oss.sgi.com On Wed, Feb 01, 2012 at 01:30:34AM +0200, Sami Liedes wrote: > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:35:28AM +0200, Sami Liedes wrote: > > The workloads do eventually complete. I tried the tar extraction again > > but this time extracting the tar from a different disk and saw no such > > warnings (and the time taken seems reasonable at 96 minutes). > > Extracting a 105 GB tar that resides on the same (target) XFS > partition on an otherwise idle disk does trigger warnings, but only > for kworker, not the tar process. The time taken to extract was a > reasonable-sounding 140 minutes, so maybe these are just harmless > warnings. It is indicating that superblock IO is taking more than 120s to complete. That's an indication that the IO subsystem is not throttling the IO queue (and so queuing up minutes worth of IO) or not processing the IO queue in a fair/timely manner. IO should never take more than a couple of seconds to complete unless there is something wrong, so the warnings are quite valid at the default timeout of 120s.... I'd suggest reporting the problem to the dm-crypt folks and see if they have any ideas on why IO completion is taking so long. > Perhaps something should/could be done to silence them in > that case? You can turn the hangcheck timer off or adjust it's timeout yourself via these proc files: $ ls /proc/sys/kernel/ |grep hung hung_task_check_count hung_task_panic hung_task_timeout_secs hung_task_warnings Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs