[Top] [All Lists]

Re: Still seeing hangs in xlog_grant_log_space

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: Still seeing hangs in xlog_grant_log_space
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2012 10:16:22 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120607013531.GP22848@dastard>
References: <CAH4wwdGWHSZoveLJMxu5pjr22NEEeW7oG8TS+snoM8RY=ZeRmg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CADLDEKsGtsw-rrSOE7gY4T81u+p41b34ixv0B7Dh07afJ73n2w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <CAH4wwdFu7DEkHFZ5Bf7_PtLPsG0hUyUDoov03q=82R6t+QkERg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120605235447.GF22848@dastard> <4FCF5DB9.2000808@xxxxxxxxxx> <20120607013531.GP22848@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:12.0) Gecko/20120430 Thunderbird/12.0.1
On 06/06/2012 09:35 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 09:40:09AM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
>> On 06/05/2012 07:54 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 01:03:04PM -0400, Peter Watkins wrote:
>>>> On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 2:28 AM, Juerg Haefliger <juergh@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> snip
>>> At this point, running on a 3.5-rc1 kernel is what we need to get
>>> working reliably. Once we have the problems solved there, we can
>>> work out what set of patches need to be backported to 3.0-stable and
>>> other kernels to fix the problems in those supported kernels...
>> Hi guys,
>> I've been reproducing a similar stall in my testing of the 're-enable
>> xfsaild idle mode' patch/thread that only occurs for me in the xfs tree.
>> I was able to do a bisect from rc2 down to commit 43ff2122, though the
>> history of this issue makes me wonder if this commit just makes the
>> problem more reproducible as opposed to introducing it. Anyways, the
>> characteristics I observe so far:
> More reproducable. See below.
>> - Task blocked for more than 120s message in xlog_grant_head_wait(). I
>> see xfs_sync_worker() in my current bt, but I'm pretty sure I've seen
>> the same issue without it involved.
>> - The AIL is not empty/idle. It spins with a relatively small and
>> constant number of entries (I've seen ~8-40). These items are all always
>> marked as "flushing."
>> - Via crash, all the inodes in the ail appear to be marked as stale
>> (i.e. li_cb == xfs_istale_done). The inode flags are
>> - The iflock in particular is why the ail marks these items 'flushing'
>> and why nothing seems to proceed any further (xfsaild just waits for
>> these to complete). I can kick the fs back into action with a 'sync.'
> Right, I've seen this as well. What I analysed in the case I saw was
> that the underlying buffer is also stale - correctly - and it is
> pinned in memory so cannot be flushed. HEnce all the inodes are
> inteh same state. The reason they are pinned in memory is that they
> items were still active in the CIL, and a log force was need to
> checkpoint the CIL and cause the checkpoint to be committed. Once
> the CIL checkpoint is committed, the stale items are freed from the
> AIL, and everything goes onward. The problem is that with the
> xfs_sync_worker stalled, nothing triggers a log force because the
> inode is returning "flushing" to the AIL pushes.

Makes sense, thanks.

> However, your analysis has allowed me to find what I think is the
> bug causing your problem - what I missed when I last saw this was
> the significance of the order of checks in xfs_inode_item_push().
> That is, we check for whether the inode is flush locked before we
> check if it is stale.

Ok, I noticed that up in inode_item_push() simply because it looked
pretty clear that it could get things moving again, but hadn't
established enough context for myself to understand whether that was

> By definition, a dirty stale inode must be attached to the
> underlying stale buffer and that requires it to be flush locked, as
> can be seen in xfs_ifree_cluster:
>>>>>>>                  xfs_iflock(ip);
>>>>>>>                  xfs_iflags_set(ip, XFS_ISTALE);
>                         /*
>                          * we don't need to attach clean inodes or those only
>                          * with unlogged changes (which we throw away, 
> anyway).
>                          */
>                         iip = ip->i_itemp;
>                         if (!iip || xfs_inode_clean(ip)) {
>                                 ASSERT(ip != free_ip);
>                                 xfs_ifunlock(ip);
>                                 xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_ILOCK_EXCL);
>                                 continue;
>                         }
>                         iip->ili_last_fields = iip->ili_fields;
>                         iip->ili_fields = 0;
>                         iip->ili_logged = 1;
>                         xfs_trans_ail_copy_lsn(mp->m_ail, &iip->ili_flush_lsn,
>                                                 &iip->ili_item.li_lsn);
>>>>>>>                  xfs_buf_attach_iodone(bp, xfs_istale_done,
>>>>>>>                                            &iip->ili_item);
> So basically, the problem is that we should be checking for stale
> before flushing in xfs_inode_item_push(). I'll send out a patch that
> fixes this in a few minutes.

Ah! I had focused on the code a bit earlier in xfs_ifree_cluster() where
it iterates the inodes attached to the buffer and marks them stale. The
comment there indicates the buffers are iflocked, but I didn't quite
understand how/why. I now see that as part of the
xfs_buf_attach_iodone(). That and your description here help clear that up.

So is it reasonable to expect a situation where an inode is sitting in
the AIL, flush locked and marked stale? E.g., an inode is
created/modified, logged, committed, checkpointed and added to the AIL
pending writeout. Subsequently that and other inodes in the same buf are
deleted and the cluster removed, resulting in everything marked stale..?

The part I'm still a bit hazy on is from the AIL perspective, it looks
like if the inode was flush locked, it should result in a buffer I/O
submission up in xfsaild in the same thread, which means I would expect
either the iflush_done() or istale_done() completion to fire. Is there
another code path where the inode flush lock is async from the buffer
I/O submission (it looks like reclaim leads into xfs_iflush()), or am I
off the rails somewhere..? :P

> Good analysis work, Brian!


> BTW, I think the underlying cause might be a different manifestation
> of the race described in the comment above
> xfs_inode_item_committed(), only this time with inodes that are
> already in the AIL....
> And FWIW, it doesn't explain the CIL stalls that seem to the other
> cause of the problem when the AIL is empty...

Yeah, it seems like different issues. I'm still trying to repeat this
original problem. So far I've reproduced hung task messages, but they
don't actually correspond to complete stalls. Hopefully I can get the
error back, but either way I'll plan to eventually test a change in
inode_item_push() and see what happens. Thanks again.


> Cheers,
> Dave.

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