On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 1:12 PM Wang Yugui wrote: > > Hi, > > > On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 6:59 AM Wang Yugui wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > I noticed a infinite loop of fstests/generic/475 when I apply this patch > > > and "[PATCH v9 00/17] gfs2: Fix mmap + page fault deadlocks" > > > > You mean v8? I can't find v9 anywhere. > > Yes. It is v8. > > > > > > > > reproduce frequency: about 50%. > > > > with v8, on top of current misc-next, I couldn't trigger any issues > > after running g/475 for 50+ times. > > > > > > > > Call Trace 1: > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: task:fsstress state:R running task stack: 0 pid:2652125 ppid: 1 flags:0x00004006 > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: Call Trace: > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: ? iomap_dio_rw+0xa/0x30 > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: ? btrfs_file_read_iter+0x157/0x1c0 [btrfs] > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: ? new_sync_read+0x118/0x1a0 > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: ? vfs_read+0xf1/0x190 > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: ? ksys_read+0x59/0xd0 > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: ? do_syscall_64+0x37/0x80 > > > Oct 22 06:13:06 T7610 kernel: ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > > > > > > > > Call Trace 2: > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: task:fsstress state:R running task stack: 0 pid: 9584 ppid: 1 flags:0x00004006 > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: Call Trace: > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: ? iomap_dio_complete+0x9e/0x140 > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: ? btrfs_file_read_iter+0x124/0x1c0 [btrfs] > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: ? new_sync_read+0x118/0x1a0 > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: ? vfs_read+0xf1/0x190 > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: ? ksys_read+0x59/0xd0 > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: ? do_syscall_64+0x37/0x80 > > > Oct 22 07:45:37 T7610 kernel: ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > > > > > > Are those the complete traces? > > It looks like too little, and inexact (the prefix ?). > > Yes. these are complete traces. I do not know the reason of 'the prefix ?' > > I run fstests/generic/475 2 times again. > - failed to reproduce on SSD/SAS > - sucessed to reproduce on SSD/NVMe > > Then I gathered 'sysrq -t' for 3 times. > > [ 909.099550] task:fsstress state:R running task stack: 0 pid: 9269 ppid: 1 flags:0x00004006 > [ 909.100594] Call Trace: > [ 909.101633] ? __clear_user+0x40/0x70 > [ 909.102675] ? lock_release+0x1c6/0x270 > [ 909.103717] ? alloc_extent_state+0xc1/0x190 [btrfs] > [ 909.104822] ? fixup_exception+0x41/0x60 > [ 909.105881] ? rcu_read_lock_held_common+0xe/0x40 > [ 909.106924] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x23/0x80 > [ 909.107947] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x23/0x80 > [ 909.108966] ? slab_post_alloc_hook+0x50/0x340 > [ 909.109993] ? trace_hardirqs_on+0x1a/0xd0 > [ 909.111039] ? lock_extent_bits+0x64/0x90 [btrfs] > [ 909.112202] ? __clear_extent_bit+0x37a/0x530 [btrfs] > [ 909.113366] ? filemap_write_and_wait_range+0x87/0xd0 > [ 909.114455] ? clear_extent_bit+0x15/0x20 [btrfs] > [ 909.115628] ? __iomap_dio_rw+0x284/0x830 > [ 909.116741] ? find_vma+0x32/0xb0 > [ 909.117868] ? __get_user_pages+0xba/0x740 > [ 909.118971] ? iomap_dio_rw+0xa/0x30 > [ 909.120069] ? btrfs_file_read_iter+0x157/0x1c0 [btrfs] > [ 909.121219] ? new_sync_read+0x11b/0x1b0 > [ 909.122301] ? vfs_read+0xf7/0x190 > [ 909.123373] ? ksys_read+0x5f/0xe0 > [ 909.124451] ? do_syscall_64+0x37/0x80 > [ 909.125556] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > [ 1066.293028] task:fsstress state:R running task stack: 0 pid: 9269 ppid: 1 flags:0x00004006 > [ 1066.294069] Call Trace: > [ 1066.295111] ? btrfs_file_read_iter+0x157/0x1c0 [btrfs] > [ 1066.296213] ? new_sync_read+0x11b/0x1b0 > [ 1066.297268] ? vfs_read+0xf7/0x190 > [ 1066.298314] ? ksys_read+0x5f/0xe0 > [ 1066.299359] ? do_syscall_64+0x37/0x80 > [ 1066.300394] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > > [ 1201.027178] task:fsstress state:R running task stack: 0 pid: 9269 ppid: 1 flags:0x00004006 > [ 1201.028233] Call Trace: > [ 1201.029298] ? iomap_dio_rw+0xa/0x30 > [ 1201.030352] ? btrfs_file_read_iter+0x157/0x1c0 [btrfs] > [ 1201.031465] ? new_sync_read+0x11b/0x1b0 > [ 1201.032534] ? vfs_read+0xf7/0x190 > [ 1201.033592] ? ksys_read+0x5f/0xe0 > [ 1201.034633] ? do_syscall_64+0x37/0x80 > [ 1201.035661] ? entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > By the way, I enable ' -O no-holes -R free-space-tree' for mkfs.btrfs by > default. Those mkfs options/fs features should be irrelevant. Can you try with the attached patch applied on top of those patches? Thanks. > > > > > > > > We noticed some error in dmesg before this infinite loop. > > > [15590.720909] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in __btrfs_free_extent:3069: errno=-5 IO failure > > > [15590.723014] BTRFS info (device dm-0): forced readonly > > > [15590.725115] BTRFS: error (device dm-0) in btrfs_run_delayed_refs:2150: errno=-5 IO failure > > > > Yes, that's expected, the test intentionally triggers simulated IO > > failures, which can happen anywhere, not just when running delayed > > references. > > Best Regards > Wang Yugui (wangyugui@e16-tech.com) > 2021/10/22 > >