On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 4:46 AM, Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 11:47:33PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>> On Wed 09-10-13 20:43:50, Richard Weinberger wrote:
>> > Am 09.10.2013 19:26, schrieb Toralf Förster:
>> > > On 10/08/2013 10:07 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
>> > >> On Sun, Oct 6, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Toralf Förster <toralf.foerster@xxxxxx> wrote:
>> > >>>> Hmm, now pages_dirtied is zero, according to the backtrace, but the BUG_ON()
>> > >>>> asserts its strict positive?!?
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> Can you please try the following instead of the BUG_ON():
>> > >>>>
>> > >>>> if (pause < 0) {
>> > >>>> printk("pages_dirtied = %lu\n", pages_dirtied);
>> > >>>> printk("task_ratelimit = %lu\n", task_ratelimit);
>> > >>>> printk("pause = %ld\n", pause);
>> > >>> I tried it in different ways already - I'm completely unsuccessful in getting any printk output.
>> > >>> As soon as the issue happens I do have a
>> > >>>
>> > >>> BUG: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 22s! [trinity-child0:1521]
>> > >>>
>> > >>> at stderr of the UML and then no further input is accepted. With uml_mconsole I'm however able
>> > >>> to run very basic commands like a crash dump, sysrq ond so on.
>> > >>
>> > >> You may get an idea of the magnitude of pages_dirtied by using a chain of
>> > >> BUG_ON()s, like:
>> > >>
>> > >> BUG_ON(pages_dirtied > 2000000000);
>> > >> BUG_ON(pages_dirtied > 1000000000);
>> > >> BUG_ON(pages_dirtied > 100000000);
>> > >> BUG_ON(pages_dirtied > 10000000);
>> > >> BUG_ON(pages_dirtied > 1000000);
>> > >>
>> > >> Probably 1 million is already too much for normal operation?
>> > >>
>> > > period = HZ * pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit;
>> > > BUG_ON(pages_dirtied > 2000000000);
>> > > BUG_ON(pages_dirtied > 1000000000); <-------------- this is line 1467
>> >
>> > Summary for mm people:
>> >
>> > Toralf runs trinty on UML/i386.
>> > After some time pages_dirtied becomes very large.
>> > More than 1000000000 pages in this case.
>> Huh, this is really strange. pages_dirtied is passed into
>> balance_dirty_pages() from current->nr_dirtied. So I wonder how a value
>> over 10^9 can get there.
>
> I noticed aio_setup_ring() in the call trace and find it recently
> added a SetPageDirty() call in a loop by commit 36bc08cc01 ("fs/aio:
> Add support to aio ring pages migration"). So added CC to its authors.
>
>> After all that is over 4TB so I somewhat doubt the
>> task was ever able to dirty that much during its lifetime (but correct me
>> if I'm wrong here, with UML and memory backed disks it is not totally
>> impossible)... I went through the logic of handling ->nr_dirtied but
>> I didn't find any obvious problem there. Hum, maybe one thing - what
>> 'task_ratelimit' values do you see in balance_dirty_pages? If that one was
>> huge, we could possibly accumulate huge current->nr_dirtied.
>>
>> > Thus, period = HZ * pages_dirtied / task_ratelimit overflows
>> > and period/pause becomes extremely large.
period/pause are signed long, so they become negative instead of
extremely large when overflowing.
>> > It looks like io_schedule_timeout() get's called with a very large timeout.
>> > I don't know why "if (unlikely(pause > max_pause)) {" does not help.
Because pause is now negative.
Gr{oetje,eeting}s,
Geert
--
Geert Uytterhoeven -- There's lots of Linux beyond ia32 -- geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In personal conversations with technical people, I call myself a hacker. But
when I'm talking to journalists I just say "programmer" or something like that.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
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