Re: NFS BUG_ON in nfs_do_writepage

[Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>]

(cc linux-nfs)

On Mon, 13 Apr 2009 01:46:24 -0400 (EDT) rercola@acm.jhu.edu wrote:

> Hi world,
> I've got a production server that's running as an NFSv4 client, along with 
> a number of other machines.
> 
> All the other machines are perfectly happy, but this one is a bit of a 
> bother. It's got a Core 2 Duo 6700, with a D975XBX2 motherboard and 4 GB 
> of ECC RAM.
> 
> The problem is that, under heavy load, NFS will trip a BUG_ON in 
> nfs_do_writepage, as follows:
> ------------[ cut here ]------------
> kernel BUG at fs/nfs/write.c:252!
> invalid opcode: 0000 [#1] SMP
> last sysfs file: /sys/devices/virtual/block/dm-
> 0/range
> CPU 0
> Modules linked in: fuse autofs4 coretemp hwmon nfs lockd nfs_acl 
> auth_rpcgss sunrpc ipv6 cpufreq_ondemand acpi_cpufreq freq_table kvm_intel 
> kvm snd_hda_codec_idt snd_hda_intel snd_hda_codec snd_hwdep snd_seq_dummy 
> snd_seq_oss snd_seq_midi_event snd_seq snd_seq_device snd_pcm_oss 
> snd_mixer_oss snd_pcm snd_timer usb_storage snd cpia_usb e1000e soundcore 
> cpia ppdev firewire_ohci snd_page_alloc firewire_core i2c_i801 videodev 
> parport_pc pcspkr iTCO_wdt i2c_core v4l1_compat crc_itu_t parport 
> iTCO_vendor_support v4l2_compat_ioctl32 i82975x_edac edac_core raid1
> Pid: 309, comm: pdflush Not tainted 2.6.29.1 #1
> RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa0291a47>]  [<ffffffffa0291a47>] 
> nfs_do_writepage+0x106/0x1a2 [nfs]
> RSP: 0018:ffff88012d805af0  EFLAGS: 00010282
> RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: ffffe20001f66878 RCX: 0000000000000015
> RDX: 0000000000600020 RSI: 0000000000000000 RDI: ffff88000155789c
> RBP: ffff88012d805b20 R08: ffff88012cd53460 R09: 0000000000000004
> R10: ffff88009d421700 R11: ffffffffa02a98d0 R12: ffff88010253a300
> R13: ffff88000155789c R14: ffffe20001f66878 R15: ffff88012d805c80
> FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffffffff817df000(0000) 
> knlGS:0000000000000000
> CS:  0010 DS: 0018 ES: 0018 CR0: 000000008005003b
> CR2: 00000000f7d2b000 CR3: 000000008708a000 CR4: 00000000000026e0
> DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
> DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000ffff0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
> Process pdflush (pid: 309, threadinfo ffff88012d804000, task 
> ffff88012e4fdb80)
> Stack:
>   ffff88012d805b20 ffffe20001f66878 ffffe20001f66878 0000000000000000
>   0000000000000001 0000000000000000 ffff88012d805b40 ffffffffa0291f5a
>   ffffe20001f66878 ffff88012d805e40 ffff88012d805c70 ffffffff810a9c1d
> Call Trace:
>   [<ffffffffa0291f5a>] nfs_writepages_callback+0x14/0x25 [nfs]
>   [<ffffffff810a9c1d>] write_cache_pages+0x261/0x3a4
>   [<ffffffffa0291f46>] ? nfs_writepages_callback+0x0/0x25 [nfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0291f1c>] nfs_writepages+0xb5/0xdf [nfs]
>   [<ffffffffa02932bd>] ? nfs_flush_one+0x0/0xeb [nfs]
>   [<ffffffff81060f78>] ? bit_waitqueue+0x17/0xa4
>   [<ffffffff810a9db7>] do_writepages+0x2d/0x3d
>   [<ffffffff810f4a51>] __writeback_single_inode+0x1b2/0x347
>   [<ffffffff8100f7d4>] ? __switch_to+0xbe/0x3eb
>   [<ffffffff810f4ffb>] generic_sync_sb_inodes+0x24a/0x395
>   [<ffffffff810f5354>] writeback_inodes+0xa9/0x102
>   [<ffffffff810a9f26>] wb_kupdate+0xa8/0x11e
>   [<ffffffff810aac9d>] pdflush+0x173/0x236
>   [<ffffffff810a9e7e>] ? wb_kupdate+0x0/0x11e
>   [<ffffffff810aab2a>] ? pdflush+0x0/0x236
>   [<ffffffff810aab2a>] ? pdflush+0x0/0x236
>   [<ffffffff81060c9e>] kthread+0x4e/0x7b
>   [<ffffffff810126ca>] child_rip+0xa/0x20
>   [<ffffffff81011fe7>] ? restore_args+0x0/0x30
>   [<ffffffff81060c50>] ? kthread+0x0/0x7b
>   [<ffffffff810126c0>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x20
> Code: 89 e7 e8 d5 cc ff ff 4c 89 e7 89 c3 e8 2a cd ff ff 85 db 74 a0 e9 83 
> 00 00 00 41 f6 44 24 40 02 74 0d 4c 89 ef e8 e2 a5 d9 e0 90 <0f> 0b eb fe 
> 4c 89 f7 e8 f5 7a e1 e0 85 c0 75 49 49 8b 46 18 ba
> RIP  [<ffffffffa0291a47>] nfs_do_writepage+0x106/0x1a2 [nfs]
>   RSP <ffff88012d805af0>
> ---[ end trace 6d60c9b253ebcf15 ]---
> 
> 64bit kernel, 32bit userland. 2.6.29.1 vanilla, bug occurred as early as 
> 2.6.28, bug still occurs with 2.6.30-rc1. I'm running bisect now, but 
> there's a limit on how often I can reboot a production server, so I'll 
> report back when I find it.
> 
> The unfortunate part, of course, is that when this bug occurs, the 
> writepage never returns...meaning that the process in question is 
> permanently locked in la-la-land (AKA state D). This renders this 
> unfortunate bug a bit...inconvenient.
> 
> [No other clients, or the server, report anything interesting when this 
> happens, AFAICS.]
>