From: Jens Axboe <axboe@suse.de>
To: Warren Togami <wtogami@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
Arjan van de Ven <arjanv@redhat.com>, Alan Cox <alan@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i2o_block Fix, possible CFQ elevator problem?
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 14:12:25 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20040419121225.GT1966@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4083BA03.1090606@redhat.com>
On Mon, Apr 19 2004, Warren Togami wrote:
> Test Systems:
> x86 AMD Duron with PM3754 DPT controller, Two disks
> x86-64 2x Opteron with ASR-3010S Adaptec controller, Four disks
>
> Software:
> Gentoo 1.4.3.13 x86 with gcc-3.3.2
> Fedora Core 2 x86-64 development with gcc-3.3.3-7
>
> The i2o_block driver currently in kernel-2.6.5 has a problem when there
> is more than one logical block device on the I2O controller. Two or
> more devices causes kernel memory corruption,[1] sometimes accompanied
> by an oops, sometimes fatally in IRQ context and livelocks. In SMP mode
> this tended to cause panic=5 reboot to fail.
>
> http://lwn.net/Articles/58199/
> Markus finally figured out what was going wrong when he read in this LWN
> article that in the 2.6 kernel, the generic block layer handles
> partition code and there is almost nothing the individual drivers have
> to do. The attached patch from Markus removes this unused partition
> logic and seemed to make things work extremely well.
>
> After some testing we began to realize why the kernel memory corruption
> that we saw with 2 or more block arrays was happening. The first array
> always had a valid partition table, while second and more arrays never
> did after they were split from the original single large array. The
> unused partition logic was copying the corrupted partition table from
> the 2nd and higher arrays into kernel memory, causing the trouble in
> kernel-2.6.5.
>
> Subsequent testing was going extremely well, with simultaneous heavy
> disk usage on two I2O block devices with bonnie++ going stable. We then
> chopped the controller into four I2O block devices, but unfortunately
> this ran us into trouble. bonnie++ on three devices simultaneously
> would panic. Below is a photo of the call trace from this panic.
>
> http://togami.com/~warren/archive/2004/i2o_cfq_quad_bonnie.jpg
>
> I noticed that the call trace contained "cfq_next_request", so I was
> curious what would happened if we changed to the deadline scheduler.
> Booted with the same kernel but with "elevator=deadline". To our
> surprise, bonnie++ ran simultaneously on all four I2O block devices
> without crashing the server. For another test we tried "elevator=as"
> and it too remained stable.
>
> Possible CFQ I/O scheduler problem?
That looks pretty damn strange. Any chance you can capture a full oops,
with a serial console or similar?
A quick look at i2o_block doesn't show anything that should cause this.
There are a number of request handling badnesses in there, though:
- kill check fo RQ_INACTIVE, it's pointless. even if it wasn't, the
inactive check return is buggy.
- you must not just clear req->waiting! remove that code.
- ->queue_depth should not be an expensive atomic type, you have the
device lock when you look at/inc/dec it.
> /*
> + * Set up the queue
> + */
> + for(i = 0; i < MAX_I2O_CONTROLLERS; i++)
> + {
> + i2ob_queues[i] = NULL;
> + i2ob_init_iop(i);
> + }
Only initialize queues that will be used. Each allocated but unusued
queues wastes memory.
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-04-19 12:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-04-19 11:37 [PATCH] i2o_block Fix, possible CFQ elevator problem? Warren Togami
2004-04-19 12:12 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2004-04-20 0:42 ` Warren Togami
[not found] ` <40848159.7090605@togami.com>
2004-04-20 7:08 ` Jens Axboe
2004-04-20 7:58 ` Warren Togami
2004-04-20 8:03 ` Jens Axboe
2004-04-20 8:59 ` Warren Togami
2004-04-20 9:05 ` Jens Axboe
2004-04-20 10:53 ` Warren Togami
2004-04-20 10:56 ` Jens Axboe
2004-04-20 11:29 ` Warren Togami
2004-04-20 11:34 ` Jens Axboe
2004-04-20 11:38 ` Jens Axboe
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=20040419121225.GT1966@suse.de \
--to=axboe@suse.de \
--cc=alan@redhat.com \
--cc=arjanv@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=wtogami@redhat.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