On 05/21/2012 05:19 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
> On 05/21/12 13:49, Brian Foster wrote:
>> Running xfstests 273 in a loop reproduces an XFS lockup due to
>> xfsaild entering idle mode indefinitely. The following
>> high-level sequence of events lead to the hang:
>>
>> - xfsaild is running, hits the stuck item threshold and reschedules,
>> setting xa_last_pushed_lsn appropriately.
>> - xa_threshold is updated.
>> - xfsaild restarts from the previous xa_last_pushed_lsn, hits the
>> new target and enters idle mode, even though the previously
>> stuck items still populate the ail.
>>
>> Modify the tout logic to only enter idle mode when the ail is empty.
>> IOW, if we hit the target but did not perform the current scan from
>> the start of the ail, reschedule at least one more time.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Brian Foster<bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
>> index ae620eb..8bc8aa2 100644
>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans_ail.c
>> @@ -503,7 +503,7 @@ xfsaild_push(
>>
>> /* assume we have more work to do in a short while */
>> out_done:
>> - if (!count) {
>> + if (!count&& !ailp->xa_last_pushed_lsn) {
>> /* We're past our target or empty, so idle */
>> ailp->xa_last_pushed_lsn = 0;
>> ailp->xa_log_flush = 0;
>
Hi Mark,
> There is another patch in the OSS XFS (43ff2122 in git://oss.sgi.com/xfs/xfs) that is not yet in Linus' tree that is in this area and that is why it is not applying cleanly.
>
Ah, sorry about that. This is my first time posting patches for XFS so I'm relatively new to the process. :) Should I rebase against the oss.sgi.com tree? For future reference, are new patches expected to be based against that tree?
> So the xfs_log_force() will un-stick the stuck items from the previous pass which set the ailp->xa_last_pushed_lsn = 0; I am asking to be re-assured the count will be non-zero and you won't go idle with still stuck items.
>
I'm not sure I parse this comment... but my interpretation of xfsaild_push() is that it's possible to "miss" a section of the ail (as reflected by count) when xa_last_pushed_lsn is non-zero. If xa_last_pushed_lsn is 0, how could count be zero unless the ail is empty?
Brian
>
> The problem that we are chasing in the AIL seems different than lost wakeup (next patch), but it would be interesting to have the patch in the kernel for testing.
>
> --Mark Tinguely
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
