> On Sun, Jun 13, 2010 at 02:50:06PM +0800, Shaohua Li wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 10:32:07AM +0800, Yan, Zheng wrote:
>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 9:12 AM, Shaohua Li <shaohua.li@intel.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Jun 11, 2010 at 01:41:41AM +0800, Jerome Ibanes wrote:
>>>>> List,
>>>>>
>>>>> I ran into a hang issue (race condition: cpu is high when the server is
>>>>> idle, meaning that btrfs is hanging, and IOwait is high as well) running
>>>>> 2.6.34 on debian/lenny on a x86_64 server (dual Opteron 275 w/ 16GB ram).
>>>>> The btrfs filesystem live on 18x300GB scsi spindles, configured as Raid-0,
>>>>> as shown below:
>>>>>
>>>>> Label: none uuid: bc6442c6-2fe2-4236-a5aa-6b7841234c52
>>>>> Total devices 18 FS bytes used 2.94TB
>>>>> devid 5 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d0
>>>>> devid 17 size 279.39GB used 208.34GB path /dev/cciss/c1d8
>>>>> devid 16 size 279.39GB used 209.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d7
>>>>> devid 4 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c0d4
>>>>> devid 1 size 279.39GB used 233.72GB path /dev/cciss/c0d1
>>>>> devid 13 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d4
>>>>> devid 8 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d11
>>>>> devid 12 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d3
>>>>> devid 3 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c0d3
>>>>> devid 9 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d12
>>>>> devid 6 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d1
>>>>> devid 11 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d2
>>>>> devid 14 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d5
>>>>> devid 2 size 279.39GB used 233.70GB path /dev/cciss/c0d2
>>>>> devid 15 size 279.39GB used 209.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d6
>>>>> devid 10 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d13
>>>>> devid 7 size 279.39GB used 208.33GB path /dev/cciss/c1d10
>>>>> devid 18 size 279.39GB used 208.34GB path /dev/cciss/c1d9
>>>>> Btrfs v0.19-16-g075587c-dirty
>>>>>
>>>>> The filesystem, mounted in /mnt/btrfs is hanging, no existing or new
>>>>> process can access it, however 'df' still displays the disk usage (3TB out
>>>>> of 5). The disks appear to be physically healthy. Please note that a
>>>>> significant number of files were placed on this filesystem, between 20 and
>>>>> 30 million files.
>>>>>
>>>>> The relevant kernel messages are displayed below:
>>>>>
>>>>> INFO: task btrfs-submit-0:4220 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>>>>> btrfs-submit- D 000000010042e12f 0 4220 2 0x00000000
>>>>> ffff8803e584ac70 0000000000000046 0000000000004000 0000000000011680
>>>>> ffff8803f7349fd8 ffff8803f7349fd8 ffff8803e584ac70 0000000000011680
>>>>> 0000000000000001 ffff8803ff99d250 ffffffff8149f020 0000000081150ab0
>>>>> Call Trace:
>>>>> [<ffffffff813089f3>] ? io_schedule+0x71/0xb1
>>>>> [<ffffffff811470be>] ? get_request_wait+0xab/0x140
>>>>> [<ffffffff810406f4>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x2e
>>>>> [<ffffffff81143a4d>] ? elv_rq_merge_ok+0x89/0x97
>>>>> [<ffffffff8114a245>] ? blk_recount_segments+0x17/0x27
>>>>> [<ffffffff81147429>] ? __make_request+0x2d6/0x3fc
>>>>> [<ffffffff81145b16>] ? generic_make_request+0x207/0x268
>>>>> [<ffffffff81145c12>] ? submit_bio+0x9b/0xa2
>>>>> [<ffffffffa01aa081>] ? btrfs_requeue_work+0xd7/0xe1 [btrfs]
>>>>> [<ffffffffa01a5365>] ? run_scheduled_bios+0x297/0x48f [btrfs]
>>>>> [<ffffffffa01aa687>] ? worker_loop+0x17c/0x452 [btrfs]
>>>>> [<ffffffffa01aa50b>] ? worker_loop+0x0/0x452 [btrfs]
>>>>> [<ffffffff81040331>] ? kthread+0x79/0x81
>>>>> [<ffffffff81003674>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x4/0x10
>>>>> [<ffffffff810402b8>] ? kthread+0x0/0x81
>>>>> [<ffffffff81003670>] ? kernel_thread_helper+0x0/0x10
>>>> This looks like the issue we saw too,
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/8/375.
>>>> This is reproduceable in our setup.
>>>
>>> I think I know the cause of
http://lkml.org/lkml/2010/6/8/375.
>>> The code in the first do-while loop in btrfs_commit_transaction
>>> set current process to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state, then calls
>>> btrfs_start_delalloc_inodes, btrfs_wait_ordered_extents and
>>> btrfs_run_ordered_operations(). All of these function may call
>>> cond_resched().
>> Hi,
>> When I test random write, I saw a lot of threads jump into btree_writepages()
>> and do noting and io throughput is zero for some time. Looks like there is a
>> live lock. See the code of btree_writepages():
>> if (wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE) {
>> struct btrfs_root *root = BTRFS_I(mapping->host)->root;
>> u64 num_dirty;
>> unsigned long thresh = 32 * 1024 * 1024;
>>
>> if (wbc->for_kupdate)
>> return 0;
>>
>> /* this is a bit racy, but that's ok */
>> num_dirty = root->fs_info->dirty_metadata_bytes;
>>>>>>>> if (num_dirty < thresh)
>> return 0;
>> }
>> The marked line is quite intrusive. In my test, the live lock is caused by the thresh
>> check. The dirty_metadata_bytes < 32M. Without it, I can't see the live lock. Not
>> sure if this is related to the hang.
>
> How much ram do you have? The goal of the check is to avoid writing
> metadata blocks because once we write them we have to do more IO to cow
> them again if they are changed later.
