On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 08:36:57AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> [adding lkml and linux-mm to the cc list]
>
> On Mon, May 30, 2016 at 09:23:48AM +0200, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
> > Hi Dave,
> > Hi Brian,
> >
> > below are the results with a vanilla 4.4.11 kernel.
>
> Thanks for persisting with the testing, Stefan.
>
> ....
>
> > i've now used a vanilla 4.4.11 Kernel and the issue remains. After a
> > fresh reboot it has happened again on the root FS for a debian apt file:
> >
> > XFS (md127p3): ino 0x41221d1 delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff 0x0 size 0x12b990
> > ------------[ cut here ]------------
> > WARNING: CPU: 1 PID: 111 at fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c:1239
> > xfs_vm_releasepage+0x10f/0x140()
> > Modules linked in: netconsole ipt_REJECT nf_reject_ipv4 xt_multiport
> > iptable_filter ip_tables x_tables bonding coretemp 8021q garp fuse
> > sb_edac edac_core i2c_i801 i40e(O) xhci_pci xhci_hcd shpchp vxlan
> > ip6_udp_tunnel udp_tunnel ipmi_si ipmi_msghandler button btrfs xor
> > raid6_pq dm_mod raid1 md_mod usbhid usb_storage ohci_hcd sg sd_mod
> > ehci_pci ehci_hcd usbcore usb_common igb ahci i2c_algo_bit libahci
> > i2c_core mpt3sas ptp pps_core raid_class scsi_transport_sas
> > CPU: 1 PID: 111 Comm: kswapd0 Tainted: G O 4.4.11 #1
> > Hardware name: Supermicro Super Server/X10SRH-CF, BIOS 1.0b 05/18/2015
> > 0000000000000000 ffff880c4dacfa88 ffffffffa23c5b8f 0000000000000000
> > ffffffffa2a51ab4 ffff880c4dacfac8 ffffffffa20837a7 ffff880c4dacfae8
> > 0000000000000001 ffffea00010c3640 ffff8802176b49d0 ffffea00010c3660
> > Call Trace:
> > [<ffffffffa23c5b8f>] dump_stack+0x63/0x84
> > [<ffffffffa20837a7>] warn_slowpath_common+0x97/0xe0
> > [<ffffffffa208380a>] warn_slowpath_null+0x1a/0x20
> > [<ffffffffa2326caf>] xfs_vm_releasepage+0x10f/0x140
> > [<ffffffffa218c680>] ? page_mkclean_one+0xd0/0xd0
> > [<ffffffffa218d3a0>] ? anon_vma_prepare+0x150/0x150
> > [<ffffffffa21521c2>] try_to_release_page+0x32/0x50
> > [<ffffffffa2166b2e>] shrink_active_list+0x3ce/0x3e0
> > [<ffffffffa21671c7>] shrink_lruvec+0x687/0x7d0
> > [<ffffffffa21673ec>] shrink_zone+0xdc/0x2c0
> > [<ffffffffa2168539>] kswapd+0x4f9/0x970
> > [<ffffffffa2168040>] ? mem_cgroup_shrink_node_zone+0x1a0/0x1a0
> > [<ffffffffa20a0d99>] kthread+0xc9/0xe0
> > [<ffffffffa20a0cd0>] ? kthread_stop+0x100/0x100
> > [<ffffffffa26b404f>] ret_from_fork+0x3f/0x70
> > [<ffffffffa20a0cd0>] ? kthread_stop+0x100/0x100
> > ---[ end trace c9d679f8ed4d7610 ]---
> > XFS (md127p3): ino 0x41221d1 delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff 0x1000 size
> > 0x12b990
> > XFS (md127p3): ino 0x41221d1 delalloc 1 unwritten 0 pgoff 0x2000 size
> .....
>
> Ok, I suspect this may be a VM bug. I've been looking at the 4.6
> code (so please try to reproduce on that kernel!) but it looks to me
> like the only way we can get from shrink_active_list() direct to
> try_to_release_page() is if we are over the maximum bufferhead
> threshold (i.e buffer_heads_over_limit = true) and we are trying to
> reclaim pages direct from the active list.
>
> Because we are called from kswapd()->balance_pgdat(), we have:
>
> struct scan_control sc = {
> .gfp_mask = GFP_KERNEL,
> .order = order,
> .priority = DEF_PRIORITY,
> .may_writepage = !laptop_mode,
> .may_unmap = 1,
> .may_swap = 1,
> };
>
> The key point here is reclaim is being run with .may_writepage =
> true for default configuration kernels. when we get to
> shrink_active_list():
>
> if (!sc->may_writepage)
> isolate_mode |= ISOLATE_CLEAN;
>
> But sc->may_writepage = true and this allows isolate_lru_pages() to
> isolate dirty pages from the active list. Normally this isn't a
> problem, because the isolated active list pages are rotated to the
> inactive list, and nothing else happens to them. *Except when
> buffer_heads_over_limit = true*. This special condition would
> explain why I have never seen apt/dpkg cause this problem on any of
> my (many) Debian systems that all use XFS....
>
> In that case, shrink_active_list() runs:
>
> if (unlikely(buffer_heads_over_limit)) {
> if (page_has_private(page) && trylock_page(page)) {
> if (page_has_private(page))
> try_to_release_page(page, 0);
> unlock_page(page);
> }
> }
>
> i.e. it locks the page, and if it has buffer heads it trys to get
> the bufferheads freed from the page.
>
> But this is a dirty page, which means it may have delalloc or
> unwritten state on it's buffers, both of which indicate that there
> is dirty data in teh page that hasn't been written. XFS issues a
> warning on this because neither shrink_active_list nor
> try_to_release_page() check for whether the page is dirty or not.
>
> Hence it seems to me that shrink_active_list() is calling
> try_to_release_page() inappropriately, and XFS is just the
> messenger. If you turn laptop mode on, it is likely the problem will
> go away as kswapd will run with .may_writepage = false, but that
> will also cause other behavioural changes relating to writeback and
> memory reclaim. It might be worth trying as a workaround for now.
>
> MM-folk - is this analysis correct? If so, why is
> shrink_active_list() calling try_to_release_page() on dirty pages?
> Is this just an oversight or is there some problem that this is
> trying to work around? It seems trivial to fix to me (add a
> !PageDirty check), but I don't know why the check is there in the
> first place...
It seems to be latter.
Below commit seems to be related.
[ecdfc9787fe527, Resurrect 'try_to_free_buffers()' VM hackery.]
At that time, even shrink_page_list works like this.
shrink_page_list
while (!list_empty(page_list)) {
..
..
if (PageDirty(page)) {
..
}
/*
* If the page has buffers, try to free the buffer mappings
* associated with this page. If we succeed we try to free
* the page as well.
*
* We do this even if the page is PageDirty().
* try_to_release_page() does not perform I/O, but it is
* possible for a page to have PageDirty set, but it is actually
* clean (all its buffers are clean). This happens if the
* buffers were written out directly, with submit_bh(). ext3
* will do this, as well as the blockdev mapping.
* try_to_release_page() will discover that cleanness and will
* drop the buffers and mark the page clean - it can be freed.
* ..
*/
if (PagePrivate(page)) {
if (!try_to_release_page(page, sc->gfp_mask))
goto activate_locked;
if (!mapping && page_count(page) == 1)
goto free_it;
}
..
}
I wonder whether it's valid or not with on ext4.
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
