On Friday, January 24th, 2025 at 10:21 AM, Marc Dionne <marc.dionne@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > A log snippet:
> >
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9009694Z [ 246.932163] INFO: task ip:1055 blocked for more than 122 seconds.
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9013633Z [ 246.932709] Tainted: G OE 6.13.0-g2bcb9cf535b8-dirty #149
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9018791Z [ 246.933249] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9025896Z [ 246.933802] task:ip state:D stack:0 pid:1055 tgid:1055 ppid:1054 flags:0x00004002
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9028228Z [ 246.934564] Call Trace:
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9029758Z [ 246.934764] <TASK>
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9032572Z [ 246.934937] __schedule+0xa91/0xe80
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9035126Z [ 246.935224] schedule+0x41/0xb0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9037992Z [ 246.935459] v9fs_evict_inode+0xfe/0x170
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9041469Z [ 246.935748] ? __pfx_var_wake_function+0x10/0x10
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9043837Z [ 246.936101] evict+0x1ef/0x360
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9046624Z [ 246.936340] __dentry_kill+0xb0/0x220
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9048855Z [ 246.936610] ? dput+0x3a/0x1d0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9051128Z [ 246.936838] dput+0x114/0x1d0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9053548Z [ 246.937069] __fput+0x136/0x2b0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9056154Z [ 246.937305] task_work_run+0x89/0xc0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9058593Z [ 246.937571] do_exit+0x2c6/0x9c0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9061349Z [ 246.937816] do_group_exit+0xa4/0xb0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9064401Z [ 246.938090] __x64_sys_exit_group+0x17/0x20
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9067235Z [ 246.938390] x64_sys_call+0x21a0/0x21a0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9069924Z [ 246.938672] do_syscall_64+0x79/0x120
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9072746Z [ 246.938941] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x25/0x80
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9075581Z [ 246.939230] ? clear_bhb_loop+0x25/0x80
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9079275Z [ 246.939510] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9081976Z [ 246.939875] RIP: 0033:0x7fb86f66f21d
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9087533Z [ 246.940153] RSP: 002b:00007ffdb3cf93f8 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: 00000000000000e7
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9092590Z [ 246.940689] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 00007fb86f785fa8 RCX: 00007fb86f66f21d
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9097722Z [ 246.941201] RDX: 00000000000000e7 RSI: ffffffffffffff80 RDI: 0000000000000000
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9102762Z [ 246.941705] RBP: 00007ffdb3cf9450 R08: 00007ffdb3cf93a0 R09: 0000000000000000
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9107940Z [ 246.942215] R10: 00007ffdb3cf92ff R11: 0000000000000202 R12: 0000000000000001
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9113002Z [ 246.942723] R13: 0000000000000000 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 00007fb86f785fc0
> > 2025-01-24T02:15:03.9114614Z [ 246.943244] </TASK>
>
>
> That looks very similar to something I saw in afs testing, with a
> similar stack but in afs_evict_inode where it hung waiting in
> netfs_wait_for_outstanding_io.
>
> David pointed to this bit where there's a double get in
> netfs_retry_read_subrequests, since netfs_reissue_read already takes
> care of getting a ref on the subrequest:
>
> diff --git a/fs/netfs/read_retry.c b/fs/netfs/read_retry.c
> index 2290af0d51ac..53d62e31a4cc 100644
> --- a/fs/netfs/read_retry.c
> +++ b/fs/netfs/read_retry.c
> @@ -152,7 +152,6 @@ static void netfs_retry_read_subrequests(struct
> netfs_io_request *rreq)
> __clear_bit(NETFS_SREQ_BOUNDARY,
> &subreq->flags);
>
> }
>
> - netfs_get_subrequest(subreq,
> netfs_sreq_trace_get_resubmit);
> netfs_reissue_read(rreq, subreq);
> if (subreq == to)
> break;
>
> That seems to help for my afs test case, I suspect it might help in
> your case as well.
Hi Marc. Thank you for the suggestion.
I've just tried this diff on top of bpf-next (d0d106a2bd21):
diff --git a/fs/netfs/read_retry.c b/fs/netfs/read_retry.c
index 2290af0d51ac..53d62e31a4cc 100644
--- a/fs/netfs/read_retry.c
+++ b/fs/netfs/read_retry.c
@@ -152,7 +152,6 @@ static void netfs_retry_read_subrequests(struct netfs_io_request *rreq)
__clear_bit(NETFS_SREQ_BOUNDARY, &subreq->flags);
}
- netfs_get_subrequest(subreq, netfs_sreq_trace_get_resubmit);
netfs_reissue_read(rreq, subreq);
if (subreq == to)
break;
and I'm getting a hung task with the same stack
[ 184.362292] INFO: task modprobe:2527 blocked for more than 20 seconds.
[ 184.363173] Tainted: G OE 6.13.0-gd0d106a2bd21-dirty #1
[ 184.363651] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
[ 184.364142] task:modprobe state:D stack:0 pid:2527 tgid:2527 ppid:2134 flags:0x00000002
[ 184.364743] Call Trace:
[ 184.364907] <TASK>
[ 184.365057] __schedule+0xa91/0xe80
[ 184.365311] schedule+0x41/0xb0
[ 184.365525] v9fs_evict_inode+0xfe/0x170
[ 184.365782] ? __pfx_var_wake_function+0x10/0x10
[ 184.366082] evict+0x1ef/0x360
[ 184.366312] __dentry_kill+0xb0/0x220
[ 184.366561] ? dput+0x3a/0x1d0
[ 184.366765] dput+0x114/0x1d0
[ 184.366962] __fput+0x136/0x2b0
[ 184.367172] __x64_sys_close+0x9e/0xd0
[ 184.367443] do_syscall_64+0x79/0x120
[ 184.367685] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x76/0x7e
[ 184.368005] RIP: 0033:0x7f4c6fc7f60b
[ 184.368249] RSP: 002b:00007ffc7582beb8 EFLAGS: 00000297 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000003
[ 184.368733] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000555e18cff7a0 RCX: 00007f4c6fc7f60b
[ 184.369176] RDX: 00007f4c6fd64ee0 RSI: 0000000000000001 RDI: 0000000000000000
[ 184.369634] RBP: 00007ffc7582bee0 R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000007
[ 184.370078] R10: 0000555e18cff980 R11: 0000000000000297 R12: 0000000000000000
[ 184.370544] R13: 00007f4c6fd65030 R14: 0000555e18cff980 R15: 0000555e18d7b750
[ 184.371004] </TASK>
[ 184.371151]
[ 184.371151] Showing all locks held in the system:
[ 184.371560] 1 lock held by khungtaskd/32:
[ 184.371816] #0: ffffffff83195d90 (rcu_read_lock){....}-{1:3}, at: debug_show_all_locks+0x2e/0x180
[ 184.372397] 2 locks held by kworker/u8:21/2134:
[ 184.372695] #0: ffff9a5300104d48 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_scheduled_works+0x23a/0x600
[ 184.373376] #1: ffff9e9882187e20 ((work_completion)(&sub_info->work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_scheduled_works+0x25a/0x600
[ 184.374075]
[ 184.374182] =============================================
So this appears to be something different.
>
> Marc
