Am 24.03.2016 um 12:17 schrieb Brian Foster: > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 09:15:15AM +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >> >> Am 24.03.2016 um 09:10 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: >>> >>> Am 23.03.2016 um 15:07 schrieb Brian Foster: >>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 02:28:03PM +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote: >>>>> sorry new one the last one got mangled. Comments inside. >>>>> >>>>> Am 05.03.2016 um 23:48 schrieb Dave Chinner: >>>>>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 04:03:42PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: >>>>>>>> Am 04.03.2016 um 20:13 schrieb Brian Foster: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 07:47:16PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Am 20.02.2016 um 19:02 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Am 20.02.2016 um 15:45 schrieb Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 09:02:28AM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: >>>> ... >>>>> >>>>> This has happened again on 8 different hosts in the last 24 hours >>>>> running 4.4.6. >>>>> >>>>> All of those are KVM / Qemu hosts and are doing NO I/O except the normal >>>>> OS stuff as the VMs have remote storage. So no database, no rsync on >>>>> those hosts - just the OS doing nearly nothing. >>>>> >>>>> All those show: >>>>> [153360.287040] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 109 at fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1234 >>>>> xfs_vm_releasepage+0xe2/0xf0() >>>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, well at this point the warning isn't telling us anything beyond >>>> you're reproducing the problem. We can't really make progress without >>>> more information. We don't necessarily know what application or >>>> operations caused this by the time it occurs, but perhaps knowing what >>>> file is affected could give us a hint. >>>> >>>> We have the xfs_releasepage tracepoint, but that's unconditional and so >>>> might generate a lot of noise by default. Could you enable the >>>> xfs_releasepage tracepoint and hunt for instances where delalloc != 0? >>>> E.g., we could leave a long running 'trace-cmd record -e >>>> "xfs:xfs_releasepage" <cmd>' command on several boxes and wait for the >>>> problem to occur. Alternatively (and maybe easier), run 'trace-cmd start >>>> -e "xfs:xfs_releasepage"' and leave something like 'cat >>>> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/trace_pipe | grep -v "delalloc 0" > >>>> ~/trace.out' running to capture instances. >> >> Isn't the trace a WARN_ONCE? So it does not reoccur or can i check the >> it in the trace.out even the WARN_ONCE was already triggered? >> > > The tracepoint is independent from the warning (see > xfs_vm_releasepage()), so the tracepoint will fire every invocation of > the function regardless of whether delalloc blocks still exist at that > point. That creates the need to filter the entries. > > With regard to performance, I believe the tracepoints are intended to be > pretty lightweight. I don't think it should hurt to try it on a box, > observe for a bit and make sure there isn't a huge impact. Note that the > 'trace-cmd record' approach will save everything to file, so that's > something to consider I suppose. Tests / cat is running. Is there any way to test if it works? Or is it enough that cat prints stuff from time to time but does not match -v delalloc 0 Stefan -- 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
