From: Michael Breuer <mbreuer@majjas.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.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: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 00:31:13 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4B7E2221.4020009@majjas.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100219040206.GE28392@discord.disaster>
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.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Dave.
>
My filesystems are mounted relatime. Just confirmed that dirty pages
doesn't climb all that much with the grep -R foo /usr > /dev/null. The
only apparant impact is to fs cache.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-02-19 5:31 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 [this message]
2010-02-19 21:05 ` Dave Chinner
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=4B7E2221.4020009@majjas.com \
--to=mbreuer@majjas.com \
--cc=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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