xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: task blocked for more than 120 seconds

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: task blocked for more than 120 seconds
From: "Josef 'Jeff' Sipek" <jeffpc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 11:46:02 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120418234821.GR6734@dastard>
References: <20120418151139.GC4652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120418234821.GR6734@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Apr 19, 2012 at 09:48:21AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 11:11:40AM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > Greetings!  I have a file server that get a pretty nasty load (about 15
> > million files created every day).  After some time, I noticed that the load
> > average spiked up from the usual 30 to about 180.  dmesg revealed:
> > 
> > [434042.318401] INFO: task php:2185 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > [434042.318403] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables 
> > this message.
> > [434042.318405] php             D 000000010675d6cd     0  2185  27306 
> > 0x00000000
> > [434042.318408]  ffff88008d735a48 0000000000000086 ffff88008d735938 
> > ffffffff00000000
> > [434042.318412]  ffff88008d734010 ffff88000e28e340 0000000000012000 
> > ffff88008d735fd8
> > [434042.318416]  ffff88008d735fd8 0000000000012000 ffff8807ef9966c0 
> > ffff88000e28e340
> > [434042.318419] Call Trace:
> > [434042.318442]  [<ffffffffa0087a9b>] ? xfs_trans_brelse+0xee/0xf7 [xfs]
> > [434042.318464]  [<ffffffffa00689de>] ? xfs_da_brelse+0x71/0x96 [xfs]
> > [434042.318485]  [<ffffffffa006df10>] ? 
> > xfs_dir2_leaf_lookup_int+0x211/0x225 [xfs]
> > [434042.318489]  [<ffffffff8141481e>] schedule+0x55/0x57
> > [434042.318512]  [<ffffffffa0083de2>] xlog_reserveq_wait+0x115/0x1c0 [xfs]
> > [434042.318515]  [<ffffffff810381f1>] ? try_to_wake_up+0x23d/0x23d
> > [434042.318539]  [<ffffffffa0083f45>] xlog_grant_log_space+0xb8/0x1be [xfs]
> > [434042.318562]  [<ffffffffa0084164>] xfs_log_reserve+0x119/0x133 [xfs]
> > [434042.318585]  [<ffffffffa0080cf1>] xfs_trans_reserve+0xca/0x199 [xfs]
> > [434042.318605]  [<ffffffffa00500dc>] xfs_create+0x18d/0x467 [xfs]
> > [434042.318623]  [<ffffffffa00485be>] xfs_vn_mknod+0xa0/0xf9 [xfs]
> > [434042.318640]  [<ffffffffa0048632>] xfs_vn_create+0xb/0xd [xfs]
> > [434042.318644]  [<ffffffff810f0c5d>] vfs_create+0x6e/0x9e
> > [434042.318647]  [<ffffffff810f1c5e>] do_last+0x302/0x642
> > [434042.318651]  [<ffffffff810f2068>] path_openat+0xca/0x344
> > [434042.318654]  [<ffffffff810f23d1>] do_filp_open+0x38/0x87
> > [434042.318658]  [<ffffffff810fb22e>] ? alloc_fd+0x76/0x11e
> > [434042.318661]  [<ffffffff810e40b1>] do_sys_open+0x10b/0x1a4
> > [434042.318664]  [<ffffffff810e4173>] sys_open+0x1b/0x1d
> > 
> > It makes sense that'd the load average would spike up if some major lock got
> > held longer than it should have been.
> 
> That's possibly just IO load. It's waiting for log space to become
> available, and that will only occur when metadata is written back to
> disk.

Yeah, it could be...

> What's the storage subsystem, what IO scheduler, the actually
> workload that is running at the time the spike occurs (e.g did
> someone run a directory traversal that changed every indoe?), and so
> on.

fs3.ess ~ # MegaCli -CfgDsply -aAll
==============================================================================
Adapter: 0
Product Name: LSI MegaRAID SAS 9260-16i
Memory: 512MB
BBU: Present
...
RAID Level          : Primary-6, Secondary-0, RAID Level Qualifier-3
Size                : 32.742 TB
State               : Optimal
Strip Size          : 64 KB
Number Of Drives per span:8
Span Depth          : 2
Default Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU
Current Cache Policy: WriteBack, ReadAdaptive, Direct, No Write Cache if Bad BBU
Access Policy       : Read/Write
Disk Cache Policy   : Disabled
Encryption Type     : None
...

fs3.ess ~ # cat /proc/mounts 
rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
/dev/root / ext4 rw,noatime,user_xattr,barrier=1,data=ordered 0 0
proc /proc proc rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0
sysfs /sys sysfs rw,nosuid,nodev,noexec,relatime 0 0
udev /dev tmpfs rw,nosuid,relatime,size=10240k,mode=755 0 0
devpts /dev/pts devpts rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,gid=5,mode=620 0 0
none /dev/shm tmpfs rw,relatime 0 0
usbfs /proc/bus/usb usbfs rw,nosuid,noexec,relatime,devgid=85,devmode=664 0 0
/dev/sda1 /boot ext3 
rw,noatime,errors=continue,user_xattr,acl,barrier=1,data=writeback 0 0
/dev/sda4 /var/data/disk0 xfs 
rw,noatime,attr2,filestreams,delaylog,nobarrier,inode64,logbufs=8,logbsize=256k,noquota
 0 0

fs3.ess ~ # xfs_info /var/data/disk0/
meta-data=/dev/sda4              isize=256    agcount=32, agsize=268435455 blks
         =                       sectsz=512   attr=2
data     =                       bsize=4096   blocks=8519632640, imaxpct=5
         =                       sunit=0      swidth=0 blks
naming   =version 2              bsize=4096   ascii-ci=0
log      =internal               bsize=4096   blocks=521728, version=2
         =                       sectsz=512   sunit=0 blks, lazy-count=1
realtime =none                   extsz=4096   blocks=0, rtextents=0

As far as the workload is concerned, there's the typical (for us) load of
create 15 million files in a day (pretty standard diurnal distribution as far
as the load is concerned).  Half the files are about 300 bytes, and the other
half averages 20kB in size.  On this system, the files are never read back.
Since we had a fs corruption recently (due to a power failure & disk caches
being on), our software managed to dump about 25 million files onto /.  I've
been rsync'ing them to the data partition at the same time (yes, it's slow
because they are two partitions on the same array).  The rsync aside, we've had
this workload going for a month on this particular server without any issues.
(The other server which is set up identically has been fine too.)  On Monday,
we mkfs'd this server's sda4, mounted it as before and started the workload.
Then, on Tuesday and Wednesday, we saw two loadavg spikes for no apparent
reason.  (Our system forks a bunch and then each child does network & disk I/O,
so 180 loadavg makes sense if the system gums up.)

The following applies to all of the spikes, but I'm specifically talking about
the spike from this morning.  During the ~45 minute spike, there seems to be
very little disk I/O (<1 MByte/s compared to the usual 10 MBytes/s).  Since
all the I/O children get stuck waiting for disk (ps says they are in 'D'
state), the network utilization drops to essentially 0.  The CPU usage also
drops to ~0%.

I *think* things return to normal because our code eventually notices that
the children are stuck and it 'kill -9's them.  (It's nicer at first.)

> Also, getting the output of 'echo w > /proc/sysrq-trigger' whould be
> helpful here....

I assume you want this when the loadavg spikes up to 180.  /me waits for the
next time it happens.

Thanks, let me know if I forgot something.

Jeff.

-- 
All science is either physics or stamp collecting.
                - Ernest Rutherford

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