From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>
To: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] xfs: fix xfsaild hang due to premature idle
Date: Mon, 21 May 2012 16:19:38 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4FBAB16A.7000808@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1337626169-21730-3-git-send-email-bfoster@redhat.com>
On 05/21/12 13:49, Brian Foster wrote:
> Running xfstests 273 in a loop reproduces an XFS lockup due to
> xfsaild entering idle mode indefinitely. The following
> high-level sequence of events lead to the hang:
>
> - xfsaild is running, hits the stuck item threshold and reschedules,
> setting xa_last_pushed_lsn appropriately.
> - xa_threshold is updated.
> - xfsaild restarts from the previous xa_last_pushed_lsn, hits the
> new target and enters idle mode, even though the previously
> stuck items still populate the ail.
>
> Modify the tout logic to only enter idle mode when the ail is empty.
> IOW, if we hit the target but did not perform the current scan from
> the start of the ail, reschedule at least one more time.
>
> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster<bfoster@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 2 +-
> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
> index ae620eb..8bc8aa2 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
> @@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ xfsaild_push(
>
> /* assume we have more work to do in a short while */
> out_done:
> - if (!count) {
> + if (!count&& !ailp->xa_last_pushed_lsn) {
> /* We're past our target or empty, so idle */
> ailp->xa_last_pushed_lsn = 0;
> ailp->xa_log_flush = 0;
There is another patch in the OSS XFS (43ff2122 in
git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs) that is not yet in Linus' tree that is in
this area and that is why it is not applying cleanly.
So the xfs_log_force() will un-stick the stuck items from the previous
pass which set the ailp->xa_last_pushed_lsn = 0; I am asking to be
re-assured the count will be non-zero and you won't go idle with still
stuck items.
The problem that we are chasing in the AIL seems different than lost
wakeup (next patch), but it would be interesting to have the patch in
the kernel for testing.
--Mark Tinguely
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-05-21 21:19 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-05-21 18:49 [RFC PATCH v2 0/3] xfs: fix xfsaild races and re-enable idle mode Brian Foster
2012-05-21 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH v2 1/3] xfs: re-enable xfsaild " Brian Foster
2012-05-21 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH v2 2/3] xfs: fix xfsaild hang due to premature idle Brian Foster
2012-05-21 21:19 ` Mark Tinguely [this message]
2012-05-22 0:31 ` Brian Foster
2012-05-22 13:10 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-05-21 18:49 ` [RFC PATCH v2 3/3] xfs: fix xfsaild hang due to lost wake ups Brian Foster
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=4FBAB16A.7000808@sgi.com \
--to=tinguely@sgi.com \
--cc=bfoster@redhat.com \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.com \
/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