On Tue, 2012-12-11 at 09:29 -0500, Dave Jones wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:23:27PM +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote: > > 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. > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=880949 > > > 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.. > > Right, it seems that we only drop the lock when there is more work to do. > And if there is no work to do, then we would have bailed from the loop. If no work to do, lock will be dropped after for loop. > > mysterious. > > Dave > > -- > To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in > the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, > see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . > Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a> -- To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM, see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ . Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>