xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Still seeing hangs in xlog_grant_log_space

To: Juerg Haefliger <juergh@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Still seeing hangs in xlog_grant_log_space
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 22:07:31 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <CADLDEKsfckBw2oVYFfaaTbpe8Ri+rYJr2e5SB7-pM0BU9nRUeA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <CADLDEKsP4DsXf_G07ub+a-ODbrJbsiprRJUX1fJdaQ41TB7+Xg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120423143843.GN9541@dastard> <CADLDEKvFF3FvEHVtmwdWhbM58_jrCRX+Uk9vLBg1hA8sizh5BQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120423235840.GQ9541@dastard> <CADLDEKsfckBw2oVYFfaaTbpe8Ri+rYJr2e5SB7-pM0BU9nRUeA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 10:55:22AM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 1:58 AM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 05:33:40PM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> >> Hi Dave,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> > On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 02:09:53PM +0200, Juerg Haefliger wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> I have a test system that I'm using to try to force an XFS filesystem
> >> >> hang since we're encountering that problem sporadically in production
> >> >> running a 2.6.38-8 Natty kernel. The original idea was to use this
> >> >> system to find the patches that fix the issue but I've tried a whole
> >> >> bunch of kernels and they all hang eventually (anywhere from 5 to 45
> >> >> mins) with the stack trace shown below.
> >> >
> >> > If you kill the workload, does the file system recover normally?
> >>
> >> The workload can't be killed.
> >
> > OK.
> >
> >> >> Only an emergency flush will
> >> >> bring the filesystem back. I tried kernels 3.0.29, 3.1.10, 3.2.15,
> >> >> 3.3.2. From reading through the mail archives, I get the impression
> >> >> that this should be fixed in 3.1.
> >> >
> >> > What you see is not necessarily a hang. It may just be that you've
> >> > caused your IO subsystem to have so much IO queued up it's completely
> >> > overwhelmed. How much RAM do you have in the machine?
> >>
> >> When it hangs, there are zero IOs going to the disk. The machine has
> >> 100GB of RAM.
> >
> > Can you get an event trace across the period where the hang occurs?
> >
> > ....
> >
> >> >> I can't seem to hit the problem without the above modifications.
> >> >
> >> > How on earth did you come up with this configuration?
> >>
> >> Just plain ol' luck. I was looking for a configuration that would
> >> allow me to reproduce the hangs and I accidentally picked a machine
> >> with a faulty controller battery which disabled the cache.
> >
> > Wonderful.
> >
> >> >> For the IO workload I pre-create 8000 files with random content and
> >> >> sizes between 1k and 128k on the test partition. Then I run a tool
> >> >> that spawns a bunch of threads which just copy these files to a
> >> >> different directory on the same partition.
> >> >
> >> > So, your workload also has a significant amount parallelism and
> >> > concurrency on a filesytsem with only 4 AGs?
> >>
> >> Yes. Excuse my ignorance but what are AGs?
> >
> > Allocation groups.
> >
> >> >> At the same time there are
> >> >> other threads that rename, remove and overwrite random files in the
> >> >> destination directory keeping the file count at around 500.
> >> >
> >> > And you've added as much concurrent metadata modification as
> >> > possible, too, which makes me wonder.....
> >> >
> >> >> Let me know what other information I can provide to pin this down.
> >> >
> >> > .... exactly what are you trying to acheive with this test?  From my
> >> > point of view, you're doing something completely and utterly insane.
> >> > You filesystem config and workload is so far outside normal
> >> > configurations and workloads that I'm not surprised you're seeing
> >> > some kind of problem.....
> >>
> >> No objection from my side. It's a silly configuration but it's the
> >> only one I've found that lets me reproduce a hang at will.
> >
> > Ok, that's fair enough - it's handy to tell us that up front,
> > though.  ;)
> 
> Ah sorry for not being clear enough. I thought my intentions could be
> deduced from the information that I provided :-)
> 
> 
> > Alright, then I need all the usual information. I suspect an event
> > trace is the only way I'm going to see what is happening. I just
> > updated the FAQ entry, so all the necessary info for gathering a
> > trace should be there now.
> >
> > http://xfs.org/index.php/XFS_FAQ#Q:_What_information_should_I_include_when_reporting_a_problem.3F
> 
> Very good. Will do. What kernel do you want me to run? I would prefer
> our current production kernel (2.6.38-8-server) but I understand if
> you want something newer.

If you can reproduce it on a current kernel - 3.4-rc4 if possible, if
not a 3.3.x stable kernel would be best. 2.6.38 is simply too old to
be useful for debugging these sorts of problems...

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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