Re: Failing XFS filesystem underlying Ceph OSDs

Dave Chinner
2015-07-05T23:25:02Z

[ Please turn off line wrap when pasting kernel traces ]

On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:25:47AM -0400, Alex Gorbachev wrote:
> > > sysctl vm.swappiness=20 (can probably be 1 as per article)
> > >
> > > sysctl vm.min_free_kbytes=262144
> >
> > That's not an explanation for what looks to be page cache radix
> > tree coruption. Memory reclaim still occurs with the settings you
> > have now and, well, those changes occurred back in 3.5 - some
> > 3 years ago - so it's not really an explanation for a problem with a
> > recent 4.1 kernel...
> >
> > > So far no issues, but I need to wait a week to see if anything shows up.
> > > Thank you for reviewing the error codes.
> >
> > I expect that you'll see the problems again...
>
> We have experienced the problem in various guises with kernels 3.14, 3.19,
> 4.1-rc2 and now 4.1, so it's not new to us, just different error stack.
> Below are some other stack dumps of what manifested as the same error.
>
> [<ffffffff817cf4b9>] schedule+0x29/0x70
> [<ffffffffc07caee7>] _xfs_log_force+0x187/0x280 [xfs]
> [<ffffffff810a4150>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x2a0/0x2a0
> [<ffffffffc07cb019>] xfs_log_force+0x39/0xc0 [xfs]
> [<ffffffffc07d6542>] xfsaild_push+0x552/0x5a0 [xfs]
> [<ffffffff817d2264>] ? schedule_timeout+0x124/0x210
> [<ffffffffc07d662f>] xfsaild+0x9f/0x140 [xfs]
> [<ffffffffc07d6590>] ? xfsaild_push+0x5a0/0x5a0 [xfs]
> [<ffffffff81095e29>] kthread+0xc9/0xe0
> [<ffffffff81095d60>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x90/0x90
> [<ffffffff817d3718>] ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90
> [<ffffffff81095d60>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x90/0x90
> INFO: task xfsaild/sdg1:2606 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> Not tainted 3.19.4-031904-generic #201504131440
> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.

That's indicative of IO completion problems, but not a crash.

> BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null)
> IP: [<ffffffffc04be80f>] xfs_count_page_state+0x3f/0x70 [xfs]
....
> [<ffffffffc04be880>] xfs_vm_releasepage+0x40/0x120 [xfs]
> [<ffffffff8118a7d2>] try_to_release_page+0x32/0x50
> [<ffffffff8119fe6d>] shrink_page_list+0x69d/0x720
> [<ffffffff811a058d>] shrink_inactive_list+0x1dd/0x5d0
....

Again, this is indicative of a page cache issue: a page without
buffers has been passed to xfs_vm_releasepage(), which implies the
page flags are not correct. i.e PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE is set but
page->private is null...

Again, this is unlikely to be an XFS issue.

> Do you think we need to look at RAM handling by this Supermicro machine
> type?

Not sure what you mean by that. Problems like this can be caused by
bad hardware, but it's unusual for a machine using ECC memory to
have undetected RAM problems...

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com