[Top] [All Lists]

Re: INFO: task pdflush:393 blocked for more than 120 seconds. & Call tra

To: Neil Brown <neilb@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: INFO: task pdflush:393 blocked for more than 120 seconds. & Call traces ... (fwd)
From: "Mr. James W. Laferriere" <babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2008 15:43:03 -0800 (AKDT)
Cc: linux-raid maillist <linux-raid@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <18565.6095.988483.628391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0807210936410.7212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <18565.6095.988483.628391@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
        Hello Neil ,

On Tue, 22 Jul 2008, Neil Brown wrote:
On Monday July 21, babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
INFO: task pdflush:393 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
pdflush       D c8209f80  4748   393      2
         f75e5e58 00000046 f7f7ad50 c8209f80 f7f7a8a0 f75e5e24 c014fc57 00000000
         f7f7a8a0 e5d0dd00 c8209f80 f75e4000 c0819e00 c8209f80 f7f7aaf4 f75e5e44
         00000286 f75e5e80 f510de30 f75e5e58 c0142233 f510de00 f75e5e80 f510de30
Call Trace:
   [<c014fc57>] ? mark_held_locks+0x67/0x80
   [<c0142233>] ? add_wait_queue+0x33/0x50
   [<c03a7f85>] xfs_buf_wait_unpin+0xb5/0xe0
   [<c0127a60>] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0x10
   [<c0127a60>] ? default_wake_function+0x0/0x10
   [<c03a84fb>] xfs_buf_iorequest+0x4b/0x80
   [<c03adeee>] xfs_bdstrat_cb+0x3e/0x50
   [<c03a495c>] xfs_bwrite+0x5c/0xe0
   [<c039e941>] xfs_syncsub+0x121/0x2b0
   [<c018a43b>] ? lock_super+0x1b/0x20
   [<c018a43b>] ? lock_super+0x1b/0x20
   [<c039e1d8>] xfs_sync+0x48/0x70
   [<c03af833>] xfs_fs_write_super+0x23/0x30
   [<c018a80f>] sync_supers+0xaf/0xc0

Looks a lot like an XFS problem to me.
Or at least, XFS people would be able to interpret this stack the
Hmm , Ok , I'll post there , I can provide a -complete- boot -> renboot log of the actions , But it ain't small ~ 649K . So I'll post that on the back of my website , ie:


        This includes the Sysrq-w & sysrq-b outputs at the bottom .
        If you're interested in that kind of thing ;-) .

   [<c0169259>] wb_kupdate+0x29/0x100
   [<c016a0cc>] ? __pdflush+0xcc/0x1a0
   [<c016a0d2>] __pdflush+0xd2/0x1a0
   [<c016a1a0>] ? pdflush+0x0/0x40
   [<c016a1d1>] pdflush+0x31/0x40
   [<c0169230>] ? wb_kupdate+0x0/0x100
   [<c016a1a0>] ? pdflush+0x0/0x40
   [<c0141e2c>] kthread+0x5c/0xa0
   [<c0141dd0>] ? kthread+0x0/0xa0
   [<c0103d67>] kernel_thread_helper+0x7/0x10
2 locks held by pdflush/393:
   #0:  (&type->s_umount_key#17){----}, at: [<c018a7b2>] sync_supers+0x52/0xc0
   #1:  (&type->s_lock_key#7){--..}, at: [<c018a43b>] lock_super+0x1b/0x20

    ...snip... Repeats of above message ad-infintum .

Hmm... I guess I clipped a bit too much for our XFS friends to know
the context.
bonnie is being run on an XFS filesystem on md/raid6. and it gets
this warning a lot and essentially hangs.
Nah , wasn't you who did the clipping t'was me . in order to get the size of the original message below ~ 80K .

                Tnx ,  JimL
| James   W.   Laferriere | System    Techniques | Give me VMS     |
| Network&System Engineer | 2133    McCullam Ave |  Give me Linux  |
| babydr@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | Fairbanks, AK. 99701 |   only  on  AXP |

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>