On 09/23/2013 10:17 AM, Mark Tinguely wrote: > On 09/08/13 20:33, Dave Chinner wrote: >> From: Dave Chinner<dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> >> >> CPU overhead of buffer lookups dominate most metadata intensive >> workloads. The thing is, most such workloads are hitting a >> relatively small number of buffers repeatedly, and so caching >> recently hit buffers is a good idea. >> > ... > > I think this needs more testing. > > I get the following panic in a loop test after a few (3-8) iterations: > > while true > do > tar zxpf xfs.tar > cd xfs > make > make modules > cd .. > rm -r xfs > done > > > BUG: unable to handle kernel paging request at ffff880831c1d218 > IP: [<ffffffffa01886c8>] _xfs_buf_find_lookaside+0x98/0xb0 [xfs] > PGD 1c5d067 PUD 85ffe0067 PMD 85fe51067 PTE 8000000831c1d060 > Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP DEBUG_PAGEALLOC > Modules linked in: xfs(O) e1000e exportfs libcrc32c ext3 jbd [last unloaded: xfs > ] > CPU: 0 PID: 23423 Comm: tar Tainted: G O 3.11.0-rc1+ #3 > task: ffff880837f087a0 ti: ffff880831c46000 task.ti: ffff880831c46000 > RIP: 0010:[<ffffffffa01886c8>] [<ffffffffa01886c8>] _xfs_buf_find_lookaside+0x9 > 8/0xb0 [xfs] > RSP: 0018:ffff880831c47918 EFLAGS: 00010286 > RAX: ffff880831c1d200 RBX: ffff8808372e0000 RCX: 0000000000000003 > RDX: 0000000000000011 RSI: 00000000000009c0 RDI: ffff8808372e0000 > RBP: ffff880831c47938 R08: ffff8808372e0000 R09: ffff8808376e8d80 > R10: 0000000000000010 R11: 00000000000009c0 R12: 00000000000009c0 > R13: 0000000000000010 R14: 0000000000000001 R15: 00000000000009c0 > FS: 00007fa4bc51f700(0000) GS:ffff88085bc00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > CR2: ffff880831c1d218 CR3: 000000082ed00000 CR4: 00000000000007f0 > Stack: > ffff880831c47938 ffff880831c47aa8 0000000000000010 ffff880834ab7900 > ffff880831c479b8 ffffffffa018a679 ffff8808372e00c0 ffff88082eed01a0 > 0000000000000029 ffff8808372e01f0 0000000000000000 000200015bfe1c68 > Call Trace: > [<ffffffffa018a679>] _xfs_buf_find+0x159/0x520 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa018aea0>] xfs_buf_get_map+0x30/0x130 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa018afc6>] xfs_buf_read_map+0x26/0xa0 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01fbf5d>] xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x16d/0x4c0 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01e784c>] xfs_imap_to_bp+0x6c/0x120 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01e7975>] xfs_iread+0x75/0x2f0 [xfs] > [<ffffffff8114eafb>] ? inode_init_always+0xfb/0x1c0 > [<ffffffffa019311a>] xfs_iget_cache_miss+0x5a/0x1e0 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01933db>] xfs_iget+0x13b/0x1c0 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01dfaad>] xfs_ialloc+0xbd/0x860 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01e02e7>] xfs_dir_ialloc+0x97/0x2e0 [xfs] > [<ffffffffa01a2308>] ? xfs_trans_reserve+0x308/0x310 [xfs] > > I got the same panic running xfstest 319 with the patch at: > http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2013-09/msg00578.html > once it hung on a xfs_buf lock before the panic. > > And these are the only tests that I threw at this patch. > > --Mark. I got similar issues in full runs of xfstests, but I'm having severe setup problems here and also had to adjust the patch for 32-bit x86. Thanks for reproducing the problem on 64-bit Linux. Michael _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
