David,
I ran into another issue that caused one my machines to hang on a
bunch of tasks and then hard lock. Here's the backtrace of the hang:
INFO: task kworker/1:2:4214 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
kworker/1:2 D ffff880443513fc0 0 4214 2 0x00000000
Workqueue: ceph-msgr con_work [libceph]
ffff88042b093868 0000000000000246 ffff88042b8e5bc0 ffffffff81569fc6
ffff88042c51dbc0 ffff88042b093fd8 ffff88042b093fd8 ffff88042b093fd8
ffff88042c518000 ffff88042c51dbc0 ffff8804266b8d10 ffff8804439d7188
Call Trace:
[<ffffffff81569fc6>] ? _raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0x16/0x20
[<ffffffffa0016570>] ? fscache_wait_bit_interruptible+0x30/0x30 [fscache]
[<ffffffff81568d09>] schedule+0x29/0x70
[<ffffffffa001657e>] fscache_wait_atomic_t+0xe/0x20 [fscache]
[<ffffffff815665cf>] out_of_line_wait_on_atomic_t+0x9f/0xe0
[<ffffffff81083560>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x40/0x40
[<ffffffffa0015a9c>] __fscache_relinquish_cookie+0x15c/0x310 [fscache]
[<ffffffffa00a4fae>] ceph_fscache_unregister_inode_cookie+0x3e/0x50 [ceph]
[<ffffffffa007e373>] ceph_destroy_inode+0x33/0x200 [ceph]
[<ffffffff811c13ae>] ? __fsnotify_inode_delete+0xe/0x10
[<ffffffff8119ba1c>] destroy_inode+0x3c/0x70
[<ffffffff8119bb69>] evict+0x119/0x1b0
[<ffffffff8119c3f3>] iput+0x103/0x190
[<ffffffffa009aaed>] iterate_session_caps+0x7d/0x240 [ceph]
[<ffffffffa009b170>] ? remove_session_caps_cb+0x270/0x270 [ceph]
[<ffffffffa00a1fc5>] dispatch+0x725/0x1b40 [ceph]
[<ffffffff81459466>] ? kernel_recvmsg+0x46/0x60
[<ffffffffa002c0e8>] ? ceph_tcp_recvmsg+0x48/0x60 [libceph]
[<ffffffffa002ecbe>] try_read+0xc1e/0x1e70 [libceph]
[<ffffffffa0030015>] con_work+0x105/0x1920 [libceph]
[<ffffffff8100349e>] ? xen_end_context_switch+0x1e/0x30
[<ffffffff8108dbca>] ? finish_task_switch+0x5a/0xc0
[<ffffffff8107aa59>] process_one_work+0x179/0x490
[<ffffffff8107bf5b>] worker_thread+0x11b/0x370
[<ffffffff8107be40>] ? manage_workers.isra.21+0x2e0/0x2e0
[<ffffffff81082a80>] kthread+0xc0/0xd0
[<ffffffff81010000>] ? perf_trace_xen_mmu_set_pud+0xd0/0xd0
[<ffffffff810829c0>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0
[<ffffffff81572cec>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
[<ffffffff810829c0>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0xb0/0xb0
It looks like it's waiting for the the cookie's n_active to drop down
to 0 ... but it isn't. After spending a bunch of hours reading the
code, then having a some beers (it is Saturday night after all), then
looking at code again... I think that the
__fscache_check_consistency() function increments the n_active counter
but never lowers it. I think the solution to this is the bellow diff
but I'm not a 100% sure. Can you let me know if I'm on the right
track... of it's beer googles?
diff --git a/fs/fscache/cookie.c b/fs/fscache/cookie.c
index 318e843..b2a86e3 100644
--- a/fs/fscache/cookie.c
+++ b/fs/fscache/cookie.c
@@ -586,7 +586,8 @@ int __fscache_check_consistency(struct
fscache_cookie *cookie)
fscache_operation_init(op, NULL, NULL);
op->flags = FSCACHE_OP_MYTHREAD |
- (1 << FSCACHE_OP_WAITING);
+ (1 << FSCACHE_OP_WAITING) |
+ (1 << FSCACHE_OP_UNUSE_COOKIE);
spin_lock(&cookie->lock);
Thanks,
- Milosz
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Sep 2013, Milosz Tanski wrote:
>> Sage,
>>
>> I've taken David's latest changes and per his request merged his
>> 'fscache-fixes-for-ceph' tag then applied my changes on top of that.
>> In addition to the pervious changes I also added a fix for the
>> warnings the linux-next build bot found.
>>
>> I've given the results a quick test to make sure it builds, boots and
>> runs okay. The code is located in my repository:
>>
>> https://adfin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx/adfin/linux-fs.git in the wip-fscache-v2 branch
>>
>> I hope that this is the final go for now and thanks for everyone's patience.
>
> Looks good; I'll send this to Linus along with the other ceph patches
> shortly.
>
> Thanks, everyone!
> sage
>
>
>>
>> - Milosz
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 11:59 AM, David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > Milosz Tanski <milosz@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >
>> >> After running this for a day on some loaded machines I ran into what
>> >> looks like an old issue with the new code. I remember you saw an issue
>> >> that manifested it self in a similar way a while back.
>> >>
>> >> [13837253.462779] FS-Cache: Assertion failed
>> >> [13837253.462782] 3 == 5 is false
>> >> [13837253.462807] ------------[ cut here ]------------
>> >> [13837253.462811] kernel BUG at fs/fscache/operation.c:414!
>> >
>> > Bah.
>> >
>> > I forgot to call fscache_op_complete(). Patch updated and repushed.
>> >
>> > Btw, I've reordered the patches to put the CIFS patch last. Can you merge the
>> > patches prior to the CIFS commit from my branch rather than cherry picking
>> > them so that if they go via two different routes, GIT will handle the merge
>> > correctly? I've stuck a tag on it (fscache-fixes-for-ceph) to make that
>> > easier for you.
>> >
>> > I've also asked another RH engineer to try doing some basic testing on the
>> > CIFS stuff - which may validate the fscache_readpages_cancel patch.
>> >
>> > David
>> --
>> 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
>>
>>
--
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
