public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Michael Breuer <mbreuer@majjas.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Hung task - sync - 2.6.33-rc7  w/md6 multicore rebuild in process
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 08:05:17 +1100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100219210517.GF28392@discord.disaster> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B7E2221.4020009@majjas.com>

On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 12:31:13AM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote:
> On 2/18/2010 11:02 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 09:31:41PM -0500, Michael Breuer wrote:
>>    
>>> On 2/18/2010 8:43 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>      
>>>>
>>>> This is probably where the barrier IOs are coming from.  With a RAID
>>>> resync going on (so all IO is going to be slow to begin with) and
>>>> writeback is causing barriers to be issued (which are really slow on
>>>> software RAID5/6), having sync take so long is not out of the
>>>> question if you have lots of dirty inodes to write back. A kernel
>>>> compile will generate lots of dirty inodes.
>>>>
>>>> Even taking the barrier IOs out of the question, I've seen reports
>>>> of sync or unmount taking over 10 hours to complete on software
>>>> RAID5 because there were hundreds of thousands of dirty inodes to
>>>> write back and each inode being written back caused a synchronous
>>>> RAID5 RMW cycle to occur. Hence writeback could only clean 50
>>>> inodes/sec because as soon as RMW cycles RAID5/6 devices start
>>>> they go slower than single spindle devices.  This sounds very
>>>> similar to what you are seeing here,
>>>>
>>>> i.e. The reports don't indicate to me that there is a bug in the
>>>> writeback code, just your disk subsystem has very, very low
>>>> throughput in these conditions....
>>>>        
>>> Probably true... and the system does recover. The only thing I'd point
>>> out is that the subsystem isn't (or perhaps shouldn't) be this sluggish.
>>> I hypothesize that the low throughput under these condition is a result
>>> of:
>>> 1) multicore raid support (pushing the resync at higher rates)
>>>      
>> Possibly, though barrier support for RAID5/6 is shiny new as well.
>>
>>    
>>> 2) time spent in fs cache reclaim. The sync slowdown only occurs when fs
>>> cache is in heavy (10Gb) use.
>>>      
>> Not surprising ;)
>>
>>    
>>> I actually could not recreate the issue until I did a grep -R foo /usr/
>>>      
>>>> /dev/null to force high fs cache utilization. For what it's worth, two
>>>>        
>>> kernel rebuilds (many dirty inodes) and then a sync with about 12Mb
>>> dirty (/proc/meminfo) didn't cause an issue. The issue only happens when
>>> fs cache is heavily used. I also never saw this before enabling
>>> multicore raid.
>>>      
>> "grep -R foo /usr/" will dirty every inode that touchs (atime) and
>> they have to be written back out. That's almost certainly creating
>> more dirty inodes than a kernel build - there are about 400,000
>> inodes under /usr on my system. That would be enough to trigger very
>> long sync times if inode writeback is slow.
>
> My filesystems are mounted relatime.

If the inode atime is older than a day, then they will still
have atime updated (i.e. be dirtied) and need writing out. Relatime
only reduces the number of atime updates; it doesn't prevent them
entirely like noatime does.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

  reply	other threads:[~2010-02-19 21:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-02-13 16:51 Hung task - sync - 2.6.33-rc7 w/md6 multicore rebuild in process Michael Breuer
2010-02-13 17:09 ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-13 18:16 ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-18  2:39   ` Jan Kara
2010-02-18  2:51     ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-18 17:11     ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-19  1:43       ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-19  2:31         ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-19  4:02           ` Dave Chinner
2010-02-19  5:31             ` Michael Breuer
2010-02-19 21:05               ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2010-04-02 11:01 ` Pozsar Balazs
2010-04-02 13:58   ` mbreuer
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2010-02-13 16:37 Michael Breuer
2010-02-13 16:17 Michael Breuer

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=20100219210517.GF28392@discord.disaster \
    --to=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mbreuer@majjas.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