[ Please turn off line wrap when pasting kernel traces ] On Sun, Jul 05, 2015 at 12:25:47AM -0400, Alex Gorbachev wrote: > > > sysctl vm.swappiness=20 (can probably be 1 as per article) > > > > > > sysctl vm.min_free_kbytes=262144 > > > > That's not an explanation for what looks to be page cache radix > > tree coruption. Memory reclaim still occurs with the settings you > > have now and, well, those changes occurred back in 3.5 - some > > 3 years ago - so it's not really an explanation for a problem with a > > recent 4.1 kernel... > > > > > So far no issues, but I need to wait a week to see if anything shows up. > > > Thank you for reviewing the error codes. > > > > I expect that you'll see the problems again... > > We have experienced the problem in various guises with kernels 3.14, 3.19, > 4.1-rc2 and now 4.1, so it's not new to us, just different error stack. > Below are some other stack dumps of what manifested as the same error. > > [<ffffffff817cf4b9>] schedule+0x29/0x70 > [<ffffffffc07caee7>] _xfs_log_force+0x187/0x280 [xfs] > [<ffffffff810a4150>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x2a0/0x2a0 > [<ffffffffc07cb019>] xfs_log_force+0x39/0xc0 [xfs] > [<ffffffffc07d6542>] xfsaild_push+0x552/0x5a0 [xfs] > [<ffffffff817d2264>] ? schedule_timeout+0x124/0x210 > [<ffffffffc07d662f>] xfsaild+0x9f/0x140 [xfs] > [<ffffffffc07d6590>] ? xfsaild_push+0x5a0/0x5a0 [xfs] > [<ffffffff81095e29>] kthread+0xc9/0xe0 > [<ffffffff81095d60>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x90/0x90 > [<ffffffff817d3718>] ret_from_fork+0x58/0x90 > [<ffffffff81095d60>] ? flush_kthread_worker+0x90/0x90 > INFO: task xfsaild/sdg1:2606 blocked for more than 120 seconds. > Not tainted 3.19.4-031904-generic #201504131440 > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. That's indicative of IO completion problems, but not a crash. > BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at (null) > IP: [<ffffffffc04be80f>] xfs_count_page_state+0x3f/0x70 [xfs] .... > [<ffffffffc04be880>] xfs_vm_releasepage+0x40/0x120 [xfs] > [<ffffffff8118a7d2>] try_to_release_page+0x32/0x50 > [<ffffffff8119fe6d>] shrink_page_list+0x69d/0x720 > [<ffffffff811a058d>] shrink_inactive_list+0x1dd/0x5d0 .... Again, this is indicative of a page cache issue: a page without buffers has been passed to xfs_vm_releasepage(), which implies the page flags are not correct. i.e PAGE_FLAGS_PRIVATE is set but page->private is null... Again, this is unlikely to be an XFS issue. > Do you think we need to look at RAM handling by this Supermicro machine > type? Not sure what you mean by that. Problems like this can be caused by bad hardware, but it's unusual for a machine using ECC memory to have undetected RAM problems... Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
