On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 04:03:42PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 09:02:06PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: > > Am 04.03.2016 um 20:13 schrieb Brian Foster: > > >On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 07:47:16PM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: > > >>Am 20.02.2016 um 19:02 schrieb Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG: > > >>> > > >>>>Am 20.02.2016 um 15:45 schrieb Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>: > > >>>> > > >>>>>On Sat, Feb 20, 2016 at 09:02:28AM +0100, Stefan Priebe wrote: > > >>>>>Hi, > > >>>>> > > >>>>>got this one today. Not sure if this is a bug. > > >>>> > > >>>>That looks like the releasepage() delayed allocation block warning. I'm > > >>>>not sure we've had any fixes for (or reports of) that issue since the > > >>>>v4.2 timeframe. > > >>>> > > >>>>What is the xfs_info of the associated filesystem? Also, do you have any > > >>>>insight as to the possible reproducer application or workload? Is this > > >>>>reproducible at all? Note that this is a WARN_ON_ONCE(), so the warning > > >>>>won't fire again regardless until after a reboot. > > >> > > >>Toda i got this one running 4.3.3. > > >> > > >>[154152.949610] ------------[ cut here ]------------ > > >>[154152.950704] WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 79 at fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1232 > > >>xfs_vm_releasepage+0xc3/0xf0() > > >>[154152.952596] Modules linked in: netconsole mpt3sas raid_class > > >>nf_conntrack_ipv4 nf_defrag_ipv4 xt_state nf_conntrack xt_tcpudp ipt_REJECT > > >>nf_reject_ipv4 xt_owner xt_multiport iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables 8021q > > >>garp coretemp k8temp ehci_pci ehci_hcd sb_edac ipmi_si usbcore edac_core > > >>ipmi_msghandler i2c_i801 usb_common button btrfs xor raid6_pq sg igb sd_mod > > >>i2c_algo_bit isci i2c_core libsas ahci ptp libahci scsi_transport_sas > > >>megaraid_sas pps_core > > >>[154152.963240] CPU: 0 PID: 79 Comm: kswapd0 Not tainted 4.4.3+3-ph #1 > > >>[154152.964625] Hardware name: Supermicro > > >>X9SRE/X9SRE-3F/X9SRi/X9SRi-3F/X9SRE/X9SRE-3F/X9SRi/X9SRi-3F, BIOS 1.0a > > >>03/06/2012 > > >>[154152.967029] 0000000000000000 ffff88103dd67a98 ffffffffa73c3b5f > > >>0000000000000000 > > >>[154152.968836] ffffffffa7a5063b ffff88103dd67ad8 ffffffffa7083757 > > >>0000000000000000 > > >>[154152.970641] 0000000000000001 ffffea0001e7bfc0 ffff88071ef72dd0 > > >>ffffea0001e7bfe0 > > >>[154152.972447] Call Trace: > > >>[154152.973011] [<ffffffffa73c3b5f>] dump_stack+0x63/0x84 > > >>[154152.974167] [<ffffffffa7083757>] warn_slowpath_common+0x97/0xe0 > > >>[154152.975515] [<ffffffffa70837ba>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20 > > >>[154152.976826] [<ffffffffa7324f23>] xfs_vm_releasepage+0xc3/0xf0 > > >>[154152.978137] [<ffffffffa71510b2>] try_to_release_page+0x32/0x50 > > >>[154152.979467] [<ffffffffa71659be>] shrink_active_list+0x3ce/0x3e0 > > >>[154152.980816] [<ffffffffa7166057>] shrink_lruvec+0x687/0x7d0 > > >>[154152.982068] [<ffffffffa716627c>] shrink_zone+0xdc/0x2c0 > > >>[154152.983262] [<ffffffffa7167399>] kswapd+0x4f9/0x970 > > >>[154152.984380] [<ffffffffa7166ea0>] ? > > >>mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone+0x1a0/0x1a0 > > >>[154152.985942] [<ffffffffa70a0ac9>] kthread+0xc9/0xe0 > > >>[154152.987040] [<ffffffffa70a0a00>] ? kthread_stop+0x100/0x100 > > >>[154152.988313] [<ffffffffa76b03cf>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70 > > >>[154152.989527] [<ffffffffa70a0a00>] ? kthread_stop+0x100/0x100 > > >>[154152.990818] ---[ end trace 3fac2515e92c7cb1 ]--- > > >> > > >>This time with an xfs info: > > >># xfs_info / > > >>meta-data=/dev/disk/by-uuid/9befe321-e9cc-4e31-82df-efabb3211bac isize=256 > > >>agcount=4, agsize=58224256 blks > > >> = sectsz=512 attr=2, projid32bit=0 > > >> = crc=0 finobt=0 > > >>data = bsize=4096 blocks=232897024, imaxpct=25 > > >> = sunit=64 swidth=384 blks > > >>naming =version 2 bsize=4096 ascii-ci=0 ftype=0 > > >>log =internal bsize=4096 blocks=113728, version=2 > > >> = sectsz=512 sunit=64 blks, lazy-count=1 > > >>realtime =none extsz=4096 blocks=0, rtextents=0 > > >> > > > > > >Can you describe the workload to the filesystem? > > > > At the time of this trace the rsync backup of the fs has started. So the > > workload was going from nearly idle to 4000 iop/s read at 60 MB/s peak. > > > > Interesting. The warning is associated with releasing a page that has a > delayed allocation when it shouldn't. That means something had written > to a file to cause the delalloc in the first place. Any idea what could > have been writing at the time or shortly before the rsync read workload > had kicked in? It's memory reclaim that tripped over it, so the cause is long gone - couple have been anything in the previous 24 hours that caused the issue. i.e. rsync has triggered memory reclaim which triggered the warning, but I don't think rsync has anything to do with causing the page to be in a state that caused the warning. I'd be interested to know if there are any other warnings in the logs - stuff like IO errors, page discards, ENOSPC issues, etc that could trigger less travelled write error paths... -Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
