On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 06:09:17PM +0100, Jens Rosenboom wrote: > 2016-01-26 15:17 GMT+01:00 Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > On Wed, Jan 20, 2016 at 12:58:53PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote: > >> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> One of the problems we currently have with delayed logging is that > >> under serious memory pressure we can deadlock memory reclaim. THis > >> occurs when memory reclaim (such as run by kswapd) is reclaiming XFS > >> inodes and issues a log force to unpin inodes that are dirty in the > >> CIL. .... > >> That said, I don't have a reliable deadlock reproducer in the first > >> place, so I'm interested i hearing what people think about this > >> approach to solve the problem and ways to test and improve it. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx> > >> --- > > > > This seems reasonable to me in principle. It would be nice to have some > > kind of feedback in terms of effectiveness resolving the original > > deadlock report. I can't think of a good way of testing short of > > actually instrumenting the deadlock one way or another, unfortunately. > > Was there a user that might be willing to test or had a detailed enough > > description of the workload/environment? > > We have seen this issue on our production Ceph cluster sporadically > and have tried a long time to reproduce it in a lab environment. .... > kmem_alloc (mode:0x2408240) > Feb 13 10:51:57 storage-node35 kernel: [10562.614089] XFS: > ceph-osd(10078) possible memory allocation deadlock size 32856 in > kmem_alloc (mode:0x2408240) High order allocation of 32k. That implies a buffer size of at least 32k is in use. Can you tell me what the output of xfs_info <mntpt> is for one of your filesystems? I suspect you are using a 64k directory block size, in which case I'll ask "are you storing millions of files in a single directory"? If your answer is no, then "don't do that" is an appropriate solution because large directory block sizes are slower than the default (4k) for almost all operations until you get up into the millions of files per directory range. > Soon after this, operations get so slow that the OSDs die because of > their suicide timeouts. > > Then I installed onto 3 servers this patch (applied onto kernel > v4.4.1). The bad news is that I am still getting the kernel messages > on these machines. The good news, though, is that they appear at a > much lower frequency and also the impact on performance seems to be > lower, so the OSD processes on these three nodes did not get killed. Right, the patch doesn't fix the underlying issue that memory fragmentation can prevent high order allocation from succeeding for long periods. However, it does ensure that the filesystem does not immediately deadlock memory reclaim when it happens so the system has a chance to recover. It still can deadlock the filesystem, because if we can't commit the transaction we can't unlock the objects in the transaction and everything can get stuck behind that if there's something sufficiently important in the blocked transaction. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
