Re: Failing XFS memory allocation

Nikolay Borisov
2016-03-23T12:56:40Z

On 03/23/2016 02:43 PM, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 12:15:42PM +0200, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> So I have an XFS filesystem which houses 2 2.3T sparse files, which are
>> loop-mounted. Recently I migrated a server to a 4.4.6 kernel and this
>> morning I observed the following in my dmesg:
>>
>> XFS: loop0(15174) possible memory allocation deadlock size 107168 in
>> kmem_alloc (mode:0x2400240)
>>
>
> Is there a stack trace associated with this message?
>
>> the mode is essentially (GFP_KERNEL | GFP_NOWARN) &= ~__GFP_FS.
>> Here is the site of the loop file in case it matters:
>>
>> du -h --apparent-size /storage/loop/file1
>> 2.3T /storage/loop/file1
>>
>> du -h /storage/loop/file1
>> 878G /storage/loop/file1
>>
>> And this string is repeated multiple times. Looking at the output of
>> "echo w > /proc/sysrq-trigger" I see the following suspicious entry:
>>
>> loop0 D ffff881fe081f038 0 15174 2 0x00000000
>> ffff881fe081f038 ffff883ff29fa700 ffff881fecb70d00 ffff88407fffae00
>> 0000000000000000 0000000502404240 ffffffff81e30d60 0000000000000000
>> 0000000000000000 ffff881f00000003 0000000000000282 ffff883f00000000
>> Call Trace:
>> [<ffffffff8163ac01>] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x21/0x60
>> [<ffffffff81636fd7>] schedule+0x47/0x90
>> [<ffffffff81639f03>] schedule_timeout+0x113/0x1e0
>> [<ffffffff810ac580>] ? lock_timer_base+0x80/0x80
>> [<ffffffff816363d4>] io_schedule_timeout+0xa4/0x110
>> [<ffffffff8114aadf>] congestion_wait+0x7f/0x130
>> [<ffffffff810939e0>] ? woken_wake_function+0x20/0x20
>> [<ffffffffa0283bac>] kmem_alloc+0x8c/0x120 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffff81181751>] ? __kmalloc+0x121/0x250
>> [<ffffffffa0283c73>] kmem_realloc+0x33/0x80 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa02546cd>] xfs_iext_realloc_indirect+0x3d/0x60 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa02548cf>] xfs_iext_irec_new+0x3f/0xf0 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0254c0d>] xfs_iext_add_indirect_multi+0x14d/0x210 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa02554b5>] xfs_iext_add+0xc5/0x230 [xfs]
>
> It looks like it's working to add a new extent to the in-core extent
> list. If this is the stack associated with the warning message (combined
> with the large alloc size), I wonder if there's a fragmentation issue on
> the file leading to an excessive number of extents.

Yes this is the stack trace associated.

>
> What does 'xfs_bmap -v /storage/loop/file1' show?

It spews a lot of stuff but here is a summary, more detailed info can be
provided if you need it:

xfs_bmap -v /storage/loop/file1 | wc -l
900908
xfs_bmap -v /storage/loop/file1 | grep -c hole
94568

Also, what would constitute an "excessive number of extents"?

>
> Brian
>
>> [<ffffffff8112b5c5>] ? mempool_alloc_slab+0x15/0x20
>> [<ffffffffa0256269>] xfs_iext_insert+0x59/0x110 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0230928>] ? xfs_bmap_add_extent_hole_delay+0xd8/0x740 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0230928>] xfs_bmap_add_extent_hole_delay+0xd8/0x740 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffff8112b5c5>] ? mempool_alloc_slab+0x15/0x20
>> [<ffffffff8112b725>] ? mempool_alloc+0x65/0x180
>> [<ffffffffa02543d8>] ? xfs_iext_get_ext+0x38/0x70 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0254e8d>] ? xfs_iext_bno_to_ext+0xed/0x150 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa02311b5>] xfs_bmapi_reserve_delalloc+0x225/0x250 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa023131e>] xfs_bmapi_delay+0x13e/0x290 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa02730ad>] xfs_iomap_write_delay+0x17d/0x300 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa022e434>] ? xfs_bmapi_read+0x114/0x330 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa025ddc5>] __xfs_get_blocks+0x585/0xa90 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffff81324b53>] ? __percpu_counter_add+0x63/0x80
>> [<ffffffff811374cd>] ? account_page_dirtied+0xed/0x1b0
>> [<ffffffff811cfc59>] ? alloc_buffer_head+0x49/0x60
>> [<ffffffff811d07c0>] ? alloc_page_buffers+0x60/0xb0
>> [<ffffffff811d13e5>] ? create_empty_buffers+0x45/0xc0
>> [<ffffffffa025e324>] xfs_get_blocks+0x14/0x20 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffff811d34e2>] __block_write_begin+0x1c2/0x580
>> [<ffffffffa025e310>] ? xfs_get_blocks_direct+0x20/0x20 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffffa025bbb1>] xfs_vm_write_begin+0x61/0xf0 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffff81127e50>] generic_perform_write+0xd0/0x1f0
>> [<ffffffffa026a341>] xfs_file_buffered_aio_write+0xe1/0x240 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffff812e16d2>] ? bt_clear_tag+0xb2/0xd0
>> [<ffffffffa026ab87>] xfs_file_write_iter+0x167/0x170 [xfs]
>> [<ffffffff81199d76>] vfs_iter_write+0x76/0xa0
>> [<ffffffffa03fb735>] lo_write_bvec+0x65/0x100 [loop]
>> [<ffffffffa03fd589>] loop_queue_work+0x689/0x924 [loop]
>> [<ffffffff8163ba52>] ? retint_kernel+0x10/0x10
>> [<ffffffff81074d71>] kthread_worker_fn+0x61/0x1c0
>> [<ffffffff81074d10>] ? flush_kthread_work+0x120/0x120
>> [<ffffffff81074d10>] ? flush_kthread_work+0x120/0x120
>> [<ffffffff810744d7>] kthread+0xd7/0xf0
>> [<ffffffff8107d22e>] ? schedule_tail+0x1e/0xd0
>> [<ffffffff81074400>] ? kthread_freezable_should_stop+0x80/0x80
>> [<ffffffff8163b2af>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
>> [<ffffffff81074400>] ? kthread_freezable_should_stop+0x80/0x80
>>
>> So this seems that there are writes to the loop device being queued and
>> while being served XFS has to do some internal memory allocation to fit
>> the new data, however due to some *uknown* reason it fails and starts
>> looping in kmem_alloc. I didn't see any OOM reports so presumably the
>> server was not out of memory, but unfortunately I didn't check the
>> memory fragmentation, though I collected a crash dump in case you need
>> further info.
>>
>> The one thing which bugs me is that XFS tried to allocate 107 contiguous
>> kb which is page-order-26 isn't this waaaaay too big and almost never
>> satisfiable, despite direct/bg reclaim to be enabled? For now I've
>> reverted to using 3.12.52 kernel, where this issue hasn't been observed
>> (yet) any ideas would be much appreciated.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> xfs mailing list
>> xfs@oss.sgi.com
>> http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs