On Mon, May 02, 2011 at 08:15:28AM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2011.04.30 at 16:18 +0200, Bruno Prémont wrote: > > On Fri, 29 April 2011 Bruno Prémont wrote: > > > On Fri, 29 April 2011 Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > > > > On 2011.04.29 at 11:19 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > > > > > OK, so the common elements here appears to be root filesystems > > > > > with small log sizes, which means they are tail pushing all the > > > > > time metadata operations are in progress. Definitely seems like a > > > > > race in the AIL workqueue trigger mechanism. I'll see if I can > > > > > reproduce this and cook up a patch to fix it. > > > > > > > > Hmm, I'm wondering if this issue is somehow related to the hrtimer bug, > > > > that Thomas Gleixner fixed yesterday: > > > > http://git.us.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/tip/linux-2.6-tip.git;a=commit;h=ce31332d3c77532d6ea97ddcb475a2b02dd358b4 > > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/61909/ > > > > > > > > It also looks similar to the issue that James Bottomley reported > > > > earlier: http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel.mm/62185/ > > > > > > I'm going to see, I've applied Thomas' fix on the box seeing XFS freeze (without > > > other changes to kernel). > > > Going to run that kernel for the week-end and beyond if it survives to see what > > > happens. > > > > Happened again (after a few hours of uptime), so it definitely is not > > caused by hrtimer bug that Thomas Gleixner fixed. > > I've enabled lock debugging and this is what happened after a few hours > uptime. (I can't tell if this is a false positive): > > ======================================================= > [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > 2.6.39-rc5-00130-g3fd9952 #10 > ------------------------------------------------------- > kio_file/7364 is trying to acquire lock: > (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#5/2){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff81151e4e>] generic_file_splice_write+0xce/0x180 > > but task is already holding lock: > (xfs_iolock_active){++++++}, at: [<ffffffff811d7d05>] xfs_ilock+0x125/0x1f0 > > which lock already depends on the new lock. Known problem. Been broken for ages, yet I only first saw a lockdep report for this about a week ago on a 2.6.32 kernel.... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
