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: Tue, 24 Apr 2012 11:10:10 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120423232759.GO9541@dastard>
References: <20120418151139.GC4652@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120418234821.GR6734@dastard> <20120419154601.GB8230@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120419225603.GA9541@dastard> <20120420135820.GB9189@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120421002932.GG9541@dastard> <20120423202441.GD21260@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120423232759.GO9541@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 09:27:59AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2012 at 04:24:41PM -0400, Josef 'Jeff' Sipek wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 21, 2012 at 10:29:32AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > ...
> > > but also given the length of the incident, some other data is definitely
> > > needed:
> > >   - a 30s event trace - it'll compress pretty well
> > >     (trace-cmd record -e xfs* sleep 30; trace-cmd report > output.txt)
> > 
> > http://31bits.net/download/output-1335211829.txt.bz2
> 
> Ok, that's instructive. Inode RMW cycles in the xfsaild:
...
> Every buffer read is followed by a queuing for write.  It is also
> showing that it is typically taking 10-25ms per inode read IO, which
> is exactly what I'd expect for your given storage. There are 2500 of
> these over the 30s period, which translates to about one every 12ms
> across the 30s sample.
> 
> So, yes, your hangs are definitely due to inode buffer RMW cycles
> when trying to flush dirty inodes from the cache. I have a few
> ideas on how to fix this - but I'm not sure whether a current TOT
> solution will be easily back-portable.

If it is too much effort to backport, we should be able to move the box to a
3.3 stable kernel (assuming no driver problems).

> The simplest solution is a readahead based solution - AIL pushing is
> async, and will cycle back to inodes that it failed to flush the first
> time past, so triggering readahead on the first pass might work just fine.
...

This makes sense.  With a large enough log, could you not end up evicting
the readahead inodes by the time you get back to them?

> That way the xfsaild will make a pass across the AIL doing
> readahead and doesn't block on RMW cycles. Effectively we get async
> RMW cycles occurring, and the latency of a single cycle will no
> longer be the performance limiting factor. I'll start to prototype
> something to address this - it isn't a new idea, and I've seen it
> done before, so i should be able to get something working.

Cool.  Let me know when you have something we can try.  I don't quite know
what it is that's causing this giant backlog of inode modifications - I
suspect it's the rsync that's pushing it over.  But regardless, I'm
interested in testing the fix.

Thanks!

Jeff.

-- 
Fact: 30.3% of all statistics are generated randomly.

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