Re: Disk error, then endless loop

Brian Foster
2015-11-17T20:21:41Z

On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 06:35:34AM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 12:37:24PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 03:28:02AM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:41:48AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> >>> On Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 07:03:33PM +1100, Chris Dunlop wrote:
> >>>> I tried to umount the filesystem but the umount is now hung and unkillable:
> >>>>
> >>>> # ps -ostat,wchan='WCHAN-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx',cmd -C umount
> >>>> STAT WCHAN-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CMD
> >>>> D+ xfs_ail_push_all_sync umount /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-18
> >>>
> >>> ... but it appears you still have something pending in the AIL which is
> >>> holding everything up. The most likely case is an EFI/EFD item hanging
> >>> around from an extent free operation, as this was a known issue,
> >>> particularly on fs shutdowns. Fixes for this went into the v4.3 kernel.
> >>
> >> Any chance of these fixes getting into -stable, or are they too intrusive
> >> and/or depend on other intrusive changes?
> >
> > I don't think so... it was a multi-patch series and a rework of the
> > EFI/EFD reference counting as opposed to an isolated bug fix. For
> > reference, it was commits 5e4b538 through f0b2efa or so.
>
> ...
>
> >>> Does the umount process actually appear to be doing anything? E.g., are
> >>> you seeing noticeable CPU load or I/O errors continue to the logs, or
> >>> has everything pretty much locked up? You could also enable tracepoints
> >>> (trace-cmd start -e "xfs:*"; cat /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe)
> >>> to get a quick idea of what's going on.
> >>
> >> No, the umount hasn't done anything noticable in the past 6.5 hours:
> >>
> >> b2# date; ps -opid,lstart,time,stat,wchan='WCHAN-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx',cmd -C umount
> >> Wed Nov 18 03:08:30 AEDT 2015
> >> PID STARTED TIME STAT WCHAN-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CMD
> >> 23946 Tue Nov 17 17:30:41 2015 00:00:00 D+ xfs_ail_push_all_sync umount /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-18
> >>
> >> I don't know how to interpret the tracepoints, but there are other busy
> >> XFS filesystems on the box so that's cluttering things up. For what it's
> >> worth, it appears the original device (/dev/sdu1) was previously dev
> >> 65:65:
> >>
> >> b2# ls -l /dev/sd[tuv]{,1}
> >> brw-rw---T 1 root disk 65, 48 Sep 16 17:11 /dev/sdt
> >> brw-rw---T 1 root disk 65, 49 Sep 16 17:11 /dev/sdt1
> >> brw-rw---T 1 root disk 65, 80 Oct 30 15:38 /dev/sdv
> >> brw-rw---T 1 root disk 65, 81 Oct 30 15:40 /dev/sdv1
> >>
> >> ..and in 10 seconds of /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe we have:
> >>
> >> # grep 'dev 65:65' /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe > /tmp/x1 & sleep 10; kill $!
> >> # wc -l /tmp/x1
> >> 181953 /tmp/x1
> >> # head /tmp/x1
> >> <...>-7702 [012] .... 5392362.786946: xfs_buf_item_iodone_async: dev 65:65 bno 0x1828eed18 nblks 0x8 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 flags ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller xfs_buf_ioend [xfs]
> >> <...>-7702 [012] .... 5392362.786946: xfs_buf_ioerror: dev 65:65 bno 0x1828eed18 len 0x1000 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 error 0 flags ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller xfs_buf_iodone_callbacks [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647059: xfs_buf_submit: dev 65:65 bno 0x27ffffff8 nblks 0x8 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller __xfs_buf_delwri_submit [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647059: xfs_buf_hold: dev 65:65 bno 0x27ffffff8 nblks 0x8 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller xfs_buf_submit [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647061: xfs_buf_rele: dev 65:65 bno 0x27ffffff8 nblks 0x8 hold 3 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller xfs_buf_submit [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647061: xfs_buf_submit: dev 65:65 bno 0x280006398 nblks 0x8 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller __xfs_buf_delwri_submit [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647061: xfs_buf_hold: dev 65:65 bno 0x280006398 nblks 0x8 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller xfs_buf_submit [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647063: xfs_buf_rele: dev 65:65 bno 0x280006398 nblks 0x8 hold 3 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller xfs_buf_submit [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647063: xfs_buf_submit: dev 65:65 bno 0x2800063f8 nblks 0x8 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller __xfs_buf_delwri_submit [xfs]
> >> xfsaild/sdu1-7991 [005] .N.. 5392363.647064: xfs_buf_hold: dev 65:65 bno 0x2800063f8 nblks 0x8 hold 2 pincount 0 lock 0 flags WRITE|ASYNC|DONE|PAGES caller xfs_buf_submit [xfs]
> >>
> >
> > Hmm, that is notably more activity than I recall when reproducing the
> > original AIL issue. Do we know whether the filesystem had actually shut
> > down or is in some intermediate state looping on errors? The fact that
> > it continues to try and submit I/O suggests that perhaps it hasn't shut
> > down for whatever reason.
> >
> > If the device has already dropped and reconnected as a new dev node,
> > it's probably harmless at this point to just try to forcibly shut down
> > the fs on the old one. Could you try the following?
> >
> > xfs_io -x -c shutdown <mnt>
>
> # xfs_io -x -c shutdown /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-18
> foreign file active, shutdown command is for XFS filesystems only
>
> # grep ceph-18 /etc/mtab
> <<< crickets >>>
>
> I don't know when the fs disappeared from mtab, it could have been when I
> first did the umount I guess, I didn't think to check at the time. But the
> umount is still there:
>
> # date; ps -opid,lstart,time,stat,wchan='WCHAN-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx',cmd -C umount
> Wed Nov 18 06:23:21 AEDT 2015
> PID STARTED TIME STAT WCHAN-xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx CMD
> 23946 Tue Nov 17 17:30:41 2015 00:00:00 D+ xfs_ail_push_all_sync umount /var/lib/ceph/osd/ceph-18
>

Ah, so it's already been removed from the namespace. Apparently it's
stuck at some point after the mount is made inaccessible and before it
actually finishes with I/O. I'm not sure we have any other option other
than a reset at this point, unfortunately. :/

Brian

> > Can you unmount the fs after that? If not, is there still any tracepoint
> > activity on the old device?
> >
> > Brian
>
> The activity is still ongoing on the old device:
>
> # trace-cmd start -e "xfs:*"
> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/events/xfs/*/filter
> # grep 'dev 65:65' /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe > /tmp/y1 & sleep 10; kill $!; wc -l /tmp/y1
> 129573 /tmp/y1
>
> Doing my little sed and perl dance shows it's still the same set of 188
> blocks as mentioned before.
>
> Chris
>
> >> In the 181953 lines there's a set of 188 different block numbers
> >> appearing, ranging from 0x8 to 0x2900ffbd8:
> >>
> >> # sed -rn 's/.*bno (0x[[:xdigit:]]+).*/\1/p' /tmp/x1 | sort -u > /tmp/x2
> >> # wc -l /tmp/x2
> >> 188 /tmp/x2
> >> # perl -pe 's/(.*)/hex($1)/e' /tmp/x2 | sort -n | perl -ne 'printf "0x%x\n",$_' > /tmp/x3
> >> # head /tmp/x3
> >> 0x8
> >> 0x10
> >> 0x20
> >> 0x28
> >> 0x3188
> >> 0x4a40
> >> 0x4a68
> >> 0x2b163a0
> >> 0x31fecd0
> >> 0x426e8f8
> >> b2# tail /tmp/x3
> >> 0x2900ffb78
> >> 0x2900ffb88
> >> 0x2900ffb98
> >> 0x2900ffba8
> >> 0x2900ffbb0
> >> 0x2900ffbb8
> >> 0x2900ffbc0
> >> 0x2900ffbc8
> >> 0x2900ffbd0
> >> 0x2900ffbd8
> >>
> >>>> As previously mentioned, the disk has actually reappeared under a different
> >>>> /dev/sdXX name (it was sdu, now sdbh). Trying to mount the disk (read only)
> >>>> results in:
> >>>>
> >>>> # mkdir /mnt/xfs && mount -ologdev=/dev/md8p5,ro /dev/sdbh1 /mnt/xfs
> >>>> mount: /dev/sdbh1 already mounted or /mnt/xfs busy
> >>>
> >>> Probably due to either a uuid check or blocking on access to the
> >>> external log device. You'll probably need to clean up the stale mount
> >>> before this will work.
> >>>
> >>> As it is, something is clearly wrong with the drive. I can't really
> >>> interpret the I/O errors and whatnot (linux-scsi?), but you probably
> >>> want to look into health assessment tools (e.g., smart) to get an idea
> >>> of what's wrong and/or replace the device and restore from backups (or
> >>> perhaps heal via the ceph cluster, in your case).
> >>
> >> Sure. It's not the disk that's concerning me, they're expected to die,
> >> but it looks like the disk error has put XFS in a state where the only
> >> solution is a hard power cycle (after quiescing and cleaning up what I
> >> can): I haven't tried it yet, but I expect I won't be able reboot
> >> cleanly.
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Brian
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >>
> >> Chris