Re: xfs: Assertion failed in xfs_ag_resv_init()

Sasha Levin
2019-05-02T17:56:02Z

On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 07:45:16PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
>On Thu, May 02, 18:52, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote
>> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 05:27:36PM +0200, Andre Noll wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 02, 16:10, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote
>> > > Ok, then how about we hold off on this patch for 4.9.y then. "no one"
>> > > should be using 4.9.y in a "server system" anymore, unless you happen to
>> > > have an enterprise kernel based on it. So we should be fine as the
>> > > users of the older kernels don't run xfs.
>> >
>> > Well, we do run xfs on top of bcache on vanilla 4.9 kernels on a few
>> > dozen production servers here. Mainly because we ran into all sorts
>> > of issues with newer kernels (not necessary related to xfs). 4.9,
>> > OTOH, appears to be rock solid for our workload.
>>
>> Great, but what is wrong with 4.14.y or better yet, 4.19.y? Do those
>> also work for your workload? If not, we should fix that, and soon :)
>
>Some months ago we tried 4.14 and it was a real disaster: random
>crashes with nothing in the logs on the file servers and unkillable
>hung processes on the compute machines. The thing is, I can't afford
>an extended downtime of these production systems, or test patches, or
>enable debugging options which slow down the systems too much. Also,
>10 of the compute nodes load the nvidia module, so all bets are off
>anyway. But we've seen the hung processes also on the non-gpu nodes
>where the nvidia module is not loaded.
>
>As for 4.19, xfs on bcache was broken until a couple of weeks
>ago. Meanwhile the fix (e578f90d8a9c) went in, so I benchmarked 4.19.x
>on one system briefly. To my surprise the results were *worse* than
>with 4.9. This seems to be another cache bypass issue, but I need to
>have a closer look, and more reliable numbers.

Is this something you can reproduce outside of those 10 magical
machines?

--
Thanks,
Sasha