On 13/03/18 14:04, Evgeniy Didin wrote: > Hello Adrian, > > I have discovered, that beggining with 4.16-rc1 bonnie++ benchmark > runs with errors on arc/hsdk board. After bisecting between 4.15 and 4.16-rc1, > I have found that errors started after? > commit 81196976ed94 (mmc: block: Add blk-mq support). > > Error message is like: > > | # bonnie++ -u root -r 256 -s 512 -x 1 -d??/mnt? > | Using uid:0, gid:0. > | Writing with putc()...random: crng init done > | done > | Writing intelligently...INFO: task kworker/u8:0:5 blocked for more than 10 seconds. > |??????Not tainted 4.15.0-rc3-00012-g81196976ed94-dirty #1 > | "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > | kworker/u8:0????D????0?????5??????2 0x00000000 > | Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-179:0) > | > | Stack Trace: > |??__switch_to+0x0/0xac > |??__schedule+0x1b8/0x738 > |??io_schedule+0x5c/0xc0 > |??bit_wait_io+0xc/0x48 > |??out_of_line_wait_on_bit+0x78/0xc0 > |??do_get_write_access+0x1aa/0x4cc > |??jbd2_journal_get_write_access+0x32/0x74 > |??__ext4_journal_get_write_access+0x3a/0xac > |??ext4_mb_mark_diskspace_used+0x66/0x5b0 > |??ext4_mb_new_blocks+0x1ee/0x830 > |??ext4_ext_map_blocks+0x504/0xcac > |??ext4_map_blocks+0x262/0x5e8 > |??mpage_map_and_submit_extent+0xb8/0x648 > |??ext4_writepages+0x5ce/0x6b4 > |??do_writepages+0x20/0x84 > |??__writeback_single_inode+0x2a/0x154 > |??wb_writeback+0x538/0xae0 > |??wb_workfn+0x17c/0x334 > |??process_one_work+0x1a6/0x350 > |??worker_thread+0xf2/0x478 > |??kthread+0x120/0x13c > |??ret_from_fork+0x18/0x1c > > There are some details of hsdk_defconfig presented bellow: > > SOFTLOCKUP_DETECTOR=y > DETECT_HUNG_TASK=y > DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10 > MMC_DW=y > MMC_DW_PLTFM=y > > I have also tested bonnie++ on Wandboard on v4.16-rc5 with the same > DEFAULT_HUNG_TASK_TIMEOUT=10, but there were no errors. > > Even though it is not critical error and we see bonnie++ test proceeds to the end, > still it is strange, that some process is running in kernel space for a long time (at least 10sec). > What is strange, before metioned commit I can't reproduce this behaviour. > > I am wondering is this expected behaviour? Was the performance affected? i.e. the results from bonnie++ What mount options did you use?
