All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Klotz <peter.klotz@aon.at>,
	Roman Kononov <kernel@kononov.ftml.net>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem?
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 05:19:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090105041959.GC367@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090105014821.GA367@wotan.suse.de>

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:48:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 04:44:43PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 05:23:33AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:12:59PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Nick, I've seen various reports like this by Roman.  It seems to be
> > > > caused by an interaction of the lockless pagecache with the xfs
> > > > I/O code.  Any idea what might be wrong here:
> > > 
> > > Hmm, it could get into a loop here if there is a page in the pagecache
> > > with a zero refcount, which might be a problem with XFS... other looping
> > > conditions might indicate a problem iwth lockless pagecache or radix
> > > tree. It would be very helpful to know what condition it is looping on...
> > 
> > See http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=805
> 
> OK.. Hmm, well here is a modification to your patch which might help further.
> I'll see if I can reproduce it here meanwhile.

I have reproduced it. It seems like it might be a livelock condition
because the system ended up recovering after I terminated the dd (and
did so before I collected any real info, oops, hopefully I can
reproduce it again).

This would fit with the problem going away when the debugging patch
was applied. Timing changes...

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Peter Klotz <peter.klotz@aon.at>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Roman Kononov <kernel@kononov.ftml.net>,
	xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem?
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 05:19:59 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090105041959.GC367@wotan.suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090105014821.GA367@wotan.suse.de>

On Mon, Jan 05, 2009 at 02:48:21AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 03, 2009 at 04:44:43PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 05:23:33AM +0100, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 12:12:59PM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > Nick, I've seen various reports like this by Roman.  It seems to be
> > > > caused by an interaction of the lockless pagecache with the xfs
> > > > I/O code.  Any idea what might be wrong here:
> > > 
> > > Hmm, it could get into a loop here if there is a page in the pagecache
> > > with a zero refcount, which might be a problem with XFS... other looping
> > > conditions might indicate a problem iwth lockless pagecache or radix
> > > tree. It would be very helpful to know what condition it is looping on...
> > 
> > See http://oss.sgi.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=805
> 
> OK.. Hmm, well here is a modification to your patch which might help further.
> I'll see if I can reproduce it here meanwhile.

I have reproduced it. It seems like it might be a livelock condition
because the system ended up recovering after I terminated the dd (and
did so before I collected any real info, oops, hopefully I can
reproduce it again).

This would fit with the problem going away when the debugging patch
was applied. Timing changes...

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2009-01-05  4:20 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 74+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-12-19  6:59 BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem? Roman Kononov
2008-12-23 17:12 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-12-23 17:12   ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-12-30  4:23   ` Nick Piggin
2008-12-30  4:23     ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-03 21:44     ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-03 21:44       ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-01-05  1:48       ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05  1:48         ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05  4:19         ` Nick Piggin [this message]
2009-01-05  4:19           ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05  6:48           ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05  6:48             ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05 14:25             ` Roman Kononov
2009-01-05 14:25               ` Roman Kononov
2009-01-05 16:21             ` Peter Klotz
2009-01-05 16:21               ` Peter Klotz
2009-01-05 16:41               ` [patch] mm: fix lockless pagecache reordering bug (was Re: BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem?) Nick Piggin
2009-01-05 16:41                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05 16:41                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05 17:30                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 17:30                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 17:30                   ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 18:00                   ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05 18:00                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05 18:00                     ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-05 18:44                     ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 18:44                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 18:44                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 19:39                       ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 19:39                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 19:39                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-06 17:17                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06 17:17                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06 17:17                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 20:12                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 20:12                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 20:12                         ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 20:39                         ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 20:39                           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 20:39                           ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-05 21:57                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 21:57                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 21:57                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06  2:05                             ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-06  2:05                               ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-06  2:05                               ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-06  2:23                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06  2:23                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06  2:23                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-06  2:29                               ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-06  2:29                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-06  2:29                                 ` Linus Torvalds
2009-01-06  8:38                               ` Peter Klotz
2009-01-06  8:38                                 ` Peter Klotz
2009-01-06  8:38                                 ` Peter Klotz
2009-01-06  8:43                                 ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-06  8:43                                   ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-06  8:43                                   ` Nick Piggin
2009-01-06 16:16                               ` Roman Kononov
2009-01-06 16:16                                 ` Roman Kononov
2009-01-06 16:16                                 ` Roman Kononov
2009-01-05 21:04                         ` [patch] mm: fix lockless pagecache reordering bug (was Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-05 21:04                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-05 21:04                           ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-01-05 21:58                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 21:58                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2009-01-05 21:58                             ` Paul E. McKenney
2011-07-14 11:23             ` BUG: soft lockup - is this XFS problem? Guus Sliepen
2011-07-14 11:23               ` Guus Sliepen
2011-07-14 18:03               ` Peter Klotz
2011-07-14 18:03                 ` Peter Klotz
2011-07-14 19:29                 ` Guus Sliepen
2011-07-14 19:29                   ` Guus Sliepen

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=20090105041959.GC367@wotan.suse.de \
    --to=npiggin@suse.de \
    --cc=hch@infradead.org \
    --cc=kernel@kononov.ftml.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=peter.klotz@aon.at \
    --cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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 an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.