Hi Ilya, > This patch has just merged for 5.6 kernel. Once it's out and ceph > daemons are updated to make use of PR_SET_IO_FLUSHER, XFS should become > usable in co-located setups. > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8d19f1c8e1937baf74e1962aae9f90fa3aeab463 Thank you very much for letting me know the detailed explanation! I'll tell Rook/Ceph guys this information. Regards, Satoru 2020年1月30日(木) 23:54 Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 12:07 PM Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Jan 29, 2020 at 8:25 AM Satoru Takeuchi > > <satoru.takeuchi@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > In Rook(*1)/Ceph community, some users encountered hang_task in XFS and it > > > would be caused by RBD driver. > > > > > > Although we've not reproduced this problem in the newest kernel, could anyone > > > give us any hint about this problem, if possible? > > > > > > *1) An Ceph orchestration in Kubernetes > > > > > > - A question about this problem in linux-xfs ML > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=158009629016068&w=2 > > > > > > - The reply to the above-mentioned question from Dave Chinner. > > > https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=158018349207976&w=2 > > > > > > I copied-and-pasted the discussion of above-mentioned mails here. > > > > > > my question: > > > ``` > > > Under some workload in Ceph, many processes got to hang_task. We found > > > that there are two kinds of processes. > > > > > > a) In very high CPU load > > > b) Encountered hang_task in the XFS > > > > > > In addition,a user got the following two kernel traces. > > > > > > A (b) process's backtrace with `hung_task_panic=1`. > > > > > > ``` > > > [51717.039319] INFO: task kworker/2:1:5938 blocked for more than 120 seconds. > > > [51717.039361] Not tainted 4.15.0-72-generic #81-Ubuntu > > > [51717.039388] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" > > > disables this message. > > > [51717.039426] kworker/2:1 D 0 5938 2 0x80000000 > > > [51717.039471] Workqueue: xfs-sync/rbd0 xfs_log_worker [xfs] > > > [51717.039472] Call Trace: > > > [51717.039478] __schedule+0x24e/0x880 > > > [51717.039504] ? xlog_sync+0x2d5/0x3c0 [xfs] > > > [51717.039506] schedule+0x2c/0x80 > > > [51717.039530] _xfs_log_force_lsn+0x20e/0x350 [xfs] > > > [51717.039533] ? wake_up_q+0x80/0x80 > > > [51717.039556] __xfs_trans_commit+0x20b/0x280 [xfs] > > > [51717.039577] xfs_trans_commit+0x10/0x20 [xfs] > > > [51717.039600] xfs_sync_sb+0x6d/0x80 [xfs] > > > [51717.039623] xfs_log_worker+0xe7/0x100 [xfs] > > > [51717.039626] process_one_work+0x1de/0x420 > > > [51717.039627] worker_thread+0x32/0x410 > > > [51717.039628] kthread+0x121/0x140 > > > [51717.039630] ? process_one_work+0x420/0x420 > > > [51717.039631] ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70 > > > [51717.039633] ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 > > > ``` > > > > > > A (b) process's backtrace that is got by `sudo cat /proc/<PID of a D > > > process>/stack` > > > > > > ``` > > > [<0>] _xfs_log_force_lsn+0x20e/0x350 [xfs] > > > [<0>] __xfs_trans_commit+0x20b/0x280 [xfs] > > > [<0>] xfs_trans_commit+0x10/0x20 [xfs] > > > [<0>] xfs_sync_sb+0x6d/0x80 [xfs] > > > [<0>] xfs_log_sbcount+0x4b/0x60 [xfs] > > > [<0>] xfs_unmountfs+0xe7/0x200 [xfs] > > > [<0>] xfs_fs_put_super+0x3e/0xb0 [xfs] > > > [<0>] generic_shutdown_super+0x72/0x120 > > > [<0>] kill_block_super+0x2c/0x80 > > > [<0>] deactivate_locked_super+0x48/0x80 > > > [<0>] deactivate_super+0x40/0x60 > > > [<0>] cleanup_mnt+0x3f/0x80 > > > [<0>] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20 > > > [<0>] task_work_run+0x9d/0xc0 > > > [<0>] exit_to_usermode_loop+0xc0/0xd0 > > > [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x121/0x130 > > > [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x3d/0xa2 > > > [<0>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > > ``` > > > > > > Here is the result of my investigation: > > > > > > - I couldn't find any commit that would be related to this problem, > > > both in the upstream > > > master and master and XFS's for-next > > > - I couldn't find any discussions that would be related to the > > > above-mentioned backtrace > > > in linux-xfs ML > > > - There would be a problem in the transaction commit of XFS. In both > > > of two traces, > > > (b) processes hung in _xfs_log_force_lsn+0x20e/0x350 [xfs]. This > > > code is one of > > > the following two xlog_wait(). > > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c#L3366 > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/xfs/xfs_log.c#L3387 > > > > > > These processes released CPU voluntarily in the following line. > > > > > > https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/fs/xfs/xfs_log_priv.h#L549 > > > > > > These two processes should be woken by the other process after that. > > > However, unfortunately, it didn't happen. > > > > > > Test environment: > > > - kernel: 4.15.0-<x>-generic > > > - XFS # Anyone hasn't reported this problem with other filesystems yet. > > > > > > Related discussions: > > > - Issue of Rook: > > > https://github.com/rook/rook/issues/3132 > > > - Issue of Ceph > > > https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/40068 > > > ``` > > > > > > Dave's answer: > > > ``` > > > > Under some workload in Ceph, many processes got to hang_task. We found > > > > that there > > > > are two kinds of processes. > > > > > > > > a) In very high CPU load > > > > b) Encountered hang_task in the XFS > > > > > > > > In addition,a user got the following two kernel traces. > > > > > > > > A (b) process's backtrace with `hung_task_panic=1`. > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > [51717.039319] INFO: task kworker/2:1:5938 blocked for more than 120 seconds. > > > > [51717.039361] Not tainted 4.15.0-72-generic #81-Ubuntu > > > > > > Kinda old, and not an upstream LTS kernel, right? > > > > > > > [51717.039388] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" > > > > disables this message. > > > > [51717.039426] kworker/2:1 D 0 5938 2 0x80000000 > > > > [51717.039471] Workqueue: xfs-sync/rbd0 xfs_log_worker [xfs] > > > > > > Filesystem is on a Ceph RBD device. > > > > > > > [51717.039472] Call Trace: > > > > [51717.039478] __schedule+0x24e/0x880 > > > > [51717.039504] ? xlog_sync+0x2d5/0x3c0 [xfs] > > > > [51717.039506] schedule+0x2c/0x80 > > > > [51717.039530] _xfs_log_force_lsn+0x20e/0x350 [xfs] > > > > [51717.039533] ? wake_up_q+0x80/0x80 > > > > [51717.039556] __xfs_trans_commit+0x20b/0x280 [xfs] > > > > [51717.039577] xfs_trans_commit+0x10/0x20 [xfs] > > > > [51717.039600] xfs_sync_sb+0x6d/0x80 [xfs] > > > > [51717.039623] xfs_log_worker+0xe7/0x100 [xfs] > > > > [51717.039626] process_one_work+0x1de/0x420 > > > > [51717.039627] worker_thread+0x32/0x410 > > > > [51717.039628] kthread+0x121/0x140 > > > > [51717.039630] ? process_one_work+0x420/0x420 > > > > [51717.039631] ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70 > > > > [51717.039633] ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 > > > > > > That's waiting for log IO completion. > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > A (b) process's backtrace that is got by `sudo cat /proc/<PID of a D > > > > process>/stack` > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > [<0>] _xfs_log_force_lsn+0x20e/0x350 [xfs] > > > > [<0>] __xfs_trans_commit+0x20b/0x280 [xfs] > > > > [<0>] xfs_trans_commit+0x10/0x20 [xfs] > > > > [<0>] xfs_sync_sb+0x6d/0x80 [xfs] > > > > [<0>] xfs_log_sbcount+0x4b/0x60 [xfs] > > > > [<0>] xfs_unmountfs+0xe7/0x200 [xfs] > > > > [<0>] xfs_fs_put_super+0x3e/0xb0 [xfs] > > > > [<0>] generic_shutdown_super+0x72/0x120 > > > > [<0>] kill_block_super+0x2c/0x80 > > > > [<0>] deactivate_locked_super+0x48/0x80 > > > > [<0>] deactivate_super+0x40/0x60 > > > > [<0>] cleanup_mnt+0x3f/0x80 > > > > [<0>] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20 > > > > [<0>] task_work_run+0x9d/0xc0 > > > > [<0>] exit_to_usermode_loop+0xc0/0xd0 > > > > [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x121/0x130 > > > > [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x3d/0xa2 > > > > [<0>] 0xffffffffffffffff > > > > > > ANd this is the last reference to the filesystem being dropped and > > > it waiting for log IO completion. > > > > > > So, the filesytem has been unmounted, and it's waiting for journal > > > IO on the device to complete. I wonder if a wakeup was missed > > > somewhere? > > > > > > Did the system stop/tear down /dev/rbd0 prematurely? > > > > Hi Satoru, > > > > I would ask the same question. Typically this is seen when the network > > is shut off before the filesystem on top of rbd is fully unmounted. > > > > > > > > > Related discussions: > > > > - Issue of Rook: > > > > https://github.com/rook/rook/issues/3132 > > > > - Issue of Ceph > > > > https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/40068 > > > > > > These point to Ceph RBDs failing to respond under high load and > > > tasks hanging because they are waiting on IO. That's exactly the > > > symptoms you are reporting here. That points to it being a Ceph RBD > > > issue to me, especially the reports where rbd devices report no IO > > > load but the ceph back end is at 100% disk utilisation doing > > > -something-. > > > > I skimmed through https://github.com/rook/rook/issues/3132 and this > > particular stack trace came from someone who was upgrading their > > cluster, draining node after node and saw a umount process get stuck. > > This happens outside of k8s as well, but it is easier to hit with k8s > > because of different volume plugins and sometimes multiple layers of > > SDN involved. One thing to do is to make sure that the filesystem on > > top of rbd gets mounted with _netdev option. It has no effect on the > > kernel, but serves as a cue to systemd to order the unmount before > > network teardown and some container engines had trouble propagating it > > between their bind mounts in the past. Of course, if you or k8s > > somehow shut the network down before umount runs, _netdev won't help. > > > > When dealing with suspected kernel issues, try to collect the entire > > dmesg, not just a couple of stack traces. In this case we would have > > likely seen the kernel attempting to reconnect to the cluster over the > > dead network because XFS has not finished unmounting: > > > > libceph: connect 10.19.115.5:6789 error -101 > > libceph: mon1 10.19.115.5:6789 connect error > > > > > > The rest of the issues in that ticket appear to have been resolved by > > switching from XFS to ext4 on top of rbd. This is crucial when mapping > > rbd devices on the OSD nodes (i.e. co-locating the kernel client with > > the OSDs) because XFS is a lot more aggressive about memory reclaim and > > in doing that it is _much_ more likely to recurse back on itself, which > > results in a deadlock. This co-location + XFS deadlock is not specific > > to rbd or ceph, here is someone who hit it with nbd: > > > > https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-xfs/msg26261.html > > > > There is no reliable way to prevent it in current kernels. This is why > > rook and ceph-csi default to ext4. > > This patch has just merged for 5.6 kernel. Once it's out and ceph > daemons are updated to make use of PR_SET_IO_FLUSHER, XFS should become > usable in co-located setups. > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=8d19f1c8e1937baf74e1962aae9f90fa3aeab463 > > Thanks, > > Ilya
