On Wed, Nov 28, 2012 at 09:55:15AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > We had a user report the soft lockup detector kicked after 22 > seconds of no progress, with this trace.. Where is the original report? The reporter may help provide some clues on the workload that triggered the bug. > :BUG: soft lockup - CPU#1 stuck for 22s! [flush-8:16:3137] > :Pid: 3137, comm: flush-8:16 Not tainted 3.6.7-4.fc17.x86_64 #1 > :RIP: 0010:[<ffffffff812eeb8c>] [<ffffffff812eeb8c>] __list_del_entry+0x2c/0xd0 > :Call Trace: > : [<ffffffff811b783e>] redirty_tail+0x5e/0x80 > : [<ffffffff811b8212>] __writeback_inodes_wb+0x72/0xd0 > : [<ffffffff811b980b>] wb_writeback+0x23b/0x2d0 > : [<ffffffff811b9b5c>] wb_do_writeback+0xac/0x1f0 > : [<ffffffff8106c0e0>] ? __internal_add_timer+0x130/0x130 > : [<ffffffff811b9d2b>] bdi_writeback_thread+0x8b/0x230 > : [<ffffffff811b9ca0>] ? wb_do_writeback+0x1f0/0x1f0 > : [<ffffffff8107fde3>] kthread+0x93/0xa0 > : [<ffffffff81627e04>] kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10 > : [<ffffffff8107fd50>] ? kthread_freezable_should_stop+0x70/0x70 > : [<ffffffff81627e00>] ? gs_change+0x13/0x13 > > Looking over the code, is it possible that something could be > dirtying pages faster than writeback can get them written out, > keeping us in this loop indefitely ? The bug reporter should know best whether there are heavy IO. However I suspect it's not directly caused by heavy IO: we will release &wb->list_lock before each __writeback_single_inode() call, which starts writeback IO for each inode. > Should there be something in this loop periodically poking > the watchdog perhaps ? It seems we failed to release &wb->list_lock in wb_writeback() for long time (dozens of seconds). That is, the inode_sleep_on_writeback() is somehow not called. However it's not obvious to me how come this can happen.. Thanks, Fengguang -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
