Received: by 2002:a05:6a10:8c0a:0:0:0:0 with SMTP id go10csp4237355pxb; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 11:07:39 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxwTNKS5LERLtx8TmB/ryAIOCTMNmP+hP8iJ78ny2/RW0bVN96dR1pgsmCPOd83QMvPu9Fc X-Received: by 2002:a50:fe89:: with SMTP id d9mr8278649edt.57.1612811258967; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:07:38 -0800 (PST) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1612811258; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=A2FcGNn3Je0JqxAVgKjzdP5mdu1sBUk13KLtEK25S/v1TUkGwDrEWSspsj4ZRFag8I t8bcCHgmK0HAaEH76ziFCieK/wEaljxeZUq9h/6msxMeuQFKiOlZrWp0AbAZJ1XkfqPw xjd3KQfqYnFfv4NWpoVS98BJVIfVcFNcxtd3wcTKZiCs0eeH+SShdKjmX0hxi5FKsEfs fBG9kX1kgtvnZPkCxJVyUPp8ejkfy0JNWUFsOtcYeXnDyUSdCi6rV+1iZ3KHyBM0+kge 8O/vDmyNgI7HPXHEojzNt5HWj2OgjvZBVO5DqgBdyyOSkJc7umF6OPu0OdnBt8Un1Min 9c/Q== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id:subject:cc :to:from:date:dkim-signature; bh=AQuhoVfjXSUZJL60o6w4cIeotP1qSprk++RuEmRXHpo=; b=VzDQY7Uc+SESbkr8pe3xDc56JNL2LH9RB8iMYvV3EQ6nsEd3cjM4shgsICxufinBCs z5I+XqDkrnmHtyCQVMxKs05MdylO3yoKWSRrsEg0YcedisS4aCutxFAUOrb6SXgdi575 1E48JeB+AeirnLFDC+5j37eFIuWH5xKJ3gNVvH4DukNuyhJ1p+xh02K4zSEk6JecQkuh MNe0vpdxubWRDRlGpOo3KPstlWuV3BeHn0Fm0W8nXnmaAiidAac5j6ffWc8AsctS0ffp s8g1Xfk6TBpthlT/BUgtcqNA5tr1sjE3gkKjgT1CImytFyoNILIH8m3/ZwDMX1nTIgPZ lrIA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=QDc9zqf7; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Return-Path: Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org. [23.128.96.18]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id w8si5988026edc.83.2021.02.08.11.07.14; Mon, 08 Feb 2021 11:07:38 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@kernel.org header.s=k20201202 header.b=QDc9zqf7; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=NONE sp=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S236073AbhBHTC4 (ORCPT + 99 others); Mon, 8 Feb 2021 14:02:56 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:39226 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S233660AbhBHR3H (ORCPT ); Mon, 8 Feb 2021 12:29:07 -0500 Received: by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6034964EA1; Mon, 8 Feb 2021 17:28:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1612805305; bh=X0a4X9Dlp9NBXxfl18ohRNsVK5iAHdJ3uGpgUQfUINQ=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=QDc9zqf7bBKQgt8rwy8hEzicITimBG65nA1+4x4iKt6On65JKReLHnKO31sYJiAbj eMNUTro2FryCLXdodMxtayxWUnCNIysolsRAt51MAslvfzfkx99dokwbISj3R67oZi Ma5OXGms+HDYBOmifjzj7qV6u7qcKpgYUPuPlEXdskrsVMm7FpnqkvYNpW9EWCwd4c i1QuWTLZ2P9gTqjvjOLN2xnt6zuyCOxaRL4CqPdUGkTlU0cgNeFWegwCiIpUdPqfgC IVB1Jonb8d4eN6Ixj+h75aKl3/NJcylFG7urhqxllVS8PRkJNUyd440QoqGn9fKThH 0mZsJAYzoLm4Q== Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2021 09:28:24 -0800 From: "Darrick J. Wong" To: "Paul E. McKenney" Cc: Brian Foster , Paul Menzel , "Darrick J. Wong" , linux-xfs@vger.kernel.org, Josh Triplett , rcu@vger.kernel.org, it+linux-rcu@molgen.mpg.de, LKML Subject: Re: rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU: Workqueue: xfs-conv/md0 xfs_end_io Message-ID: <20210208172824.GA7209@magnolia> References: <1b07e849-cffd-db1f-f01b-2b8b45ce8c36@molgen.mpg.de> <20210205171240.GN2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210208140724.GA126859@bfoster> <20210208145723.GT2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20210208154458.GB126859@bfoster> <20210208171140.GV2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20210208171140.GV2743@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:11:40AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:44:58AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 06:57:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:07:24AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 09:12:40AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 08:29:06AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote: > > > > > > Dear Linux folks, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On a Dell PowerEdge T630/0NT78X, BIOS 2.8.0 05/23/2018 with Linux 5.4.57, we > > > > > > twice saw a self-detected stall on a CPU (October 27th, 2020, January 18th, > > > > > > 2021). > > > > > > > > > > > > Both times, the workqueue is `xfs-conv/md0 xfs_end_io`. > > > > > > > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > [ 0.000000] Linux version 5.4.57.mx64.340 > > > > > > (root@theinternet.molgen.mpg.de) (gcc version 7.5.0 (GCC)) #1 SMP Tue Aug 11 > > > > > > 13:20:33 CEST 2020 > > > > > > […] > > > > > > [48962.981257] rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU > > > > > > [48962.987511] rcu: 4-....: (20999 ticks this GP) > > > > > > idle=fe6/1/0x4000000000000002 softirq=3630188/3630188 fqs=4696 > > > > > > [48962.998805] (t=21017 jiffies g=14529009 q=32263) > > > > > > [48963.004074] Task dump for CPU 4: > > > > > > [48963.007689] kworker/4:2 R running task 0 25587 2 > > > > > > 0x80004008 > > > > > > [48963.015591] Workqueue: xfs-conv/md0 xfs_end_io > > > > > > [48963.020570] Call Trace: > > > > > > [48963.023311] > > > > > > [48963.025560] sched_show_task+0x11e/0x150 > > > > > > [48963.029957] rcu_dump_cpu_stacks+0x70/0xa0 > > > > > > [48963.034545] rcu_sched_clock_irq+0x502/0x770 > > > > > > [48963.039322] ? tick_sched_do_timer+0x60/0x60 > > > > > > [48963.044106] update_process_times+0x24/0x60 > > > > > > [48963.048791] tick_sched_timer+0x37/0x70 > > > > > > [48963.053089] __hrtimer_run_queues+0x11f/0x2b0 > > > > > > [48963.057960] ? recalibrate_cpu_khz+0x10/0x10 > > > > > > [48963.062744] hrtimer_interrupt+0xe5/0x240 > > > > > > [48963.067235] smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6f/0x130 > > > > > > [48963.072407] apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20 > > > > > > [48963.076994] > > > > > > [48963.079347] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0xa/0x10 > > > > > > [48963.085491] Code: f3 90 83 e8 01 75 e8 65 8b 3d 42 0f 56 7e e8 ed ea 5e > > > > > > ff 48 29 e8 4c 39 e8 76 cf 80 0b 08 eb 8c 0f 1f 44 00 00 c6 07 00 56 9d > > > > > > 0f 1f 44 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 b8 00 fe ff ff f0 0f c1 07 56 9d > > > > > > [48963.106524] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000738fd40 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX: > > > > > > ffffffffffffff13 > > > > > > [48963.115003] RAX: ffffffff82407588 RBX: ffffffff82407580 RCX: > > > > > > ffffffff82407588 > > > > > > [48963.122994] RDX: ffffffff82407588 RSI: 0000000000000202 RDI: > > > > > > ffffffff82407580 > > > > > > [48963.130989] RBP: 0000000000000202 R08: ffffffff8203ea00 R09: > > > > > > 0000000000000001 > > > > > > [48963.138982] R10: ffffc9000738fbb8 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: > > > > > > ffffffff82407588 > > > > > > [48963.146976] R13: ffffea005e7ae600 R14: ffff8897b7e5a040 R15: > > > > > > ffffea005e7ae600 > > > > > > [48963.154971] wake_up_page_bit+0xe0/0x100 > > > > > > [48963.159366] xfs_destroy_ioend+0xce/0x1c0 > > > > > > [48963.163857] xfs_end_ioend+0xcf/0x1a0 > > > > > > [48963.167958] xfs_end_io+0xa4/0xd0 > > > > > > [48963.171672] process_one_work+0x1e5/0x410 > > > > > > [48963.176163] worker_thread+0x2d/0x3c0 > > > > > > [48963.180265] ? cancel_delayed_work+0x90/0x90 > > > > > > [48963.185048] kthread+0x117/0x130 > > > > > > [48963.188663] ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70 > > > > > > [48963.194321] ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40 > > > > > > ``` > > > > > > > > > > > > As it’s just log level INFO, is there anything what should be done, or was > > > > > > the system probably just “overloaded”? > > > > > > > > > > I am assuming that you are building your kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y > > > > > rather than CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y. > > > > > > > > > > If so, and if the problem is that you are temporarily overdriving xfs I/O, > > > > > one approach would be as follows: > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > > > > > index f16d5f1..06be426 100644 > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c > > > > > @@ -390,6 +390,7 @@ xfs_end_io( > > > > > list_del_init(&ioend->io_list); > > > > > xfs_ioend_try_merge(ioend, &completion_list); > > > > > xfs_end_ioend(ioend); > > > > > + cond_resched(); > > > > > } > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > > > FWIW, this looks quite similar to the problem I attempted to fix with > > > > these patches: > > > > > > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20201002153357.56409-1-bfoster@redhat.com/ > > > > > > Looks plausible to me! Do you plan to re-post taking the feedback > > > into account? > > > > There was a v2 inline that incorporated some directed feedback. > > Otherwise there were questions and ideas about making the whole thing > > faster, but I've no idea if that addresses the problem or not (if so, > > that would be an entirely different set of patches). I'll wait and see > > what Darrick thinks about this and rebase/repost if the approach is > > agreeable.. > > There is always the school of thought that says that the best way to > get people to focus on this is to rebase and repost. Otherwise, they > are all too likely to assume that you lost interest in this. I was hoping that a better solution would emerge for clearing PageWriteback on hundreds of thousands of pages, but nothing easy popped out. The hardcoded threshold in "[PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: kick extra large ioends to completion workqueue" gives me unease because who's to say if marking 262,144 pages on a particular CPU will actually stall it long enough to trip the hangcheck? Is the number lower on (say) some pokey NAS box with a lot of storage but a slow CPU? That said, /some/ threshold is probably better than no threshold. Could someone try to confirm if that series of Brian's fixes this problem too? --D > Thanx, Paul > > > Brian > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > Brian > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you have instead built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y, then your > > > > > problem is likely massive lock contention in wake_up_page_bit(), or > > > > > perhaps someone having failed to release that lock. The usual way to > > > > > work this out is by enabling lockdep (CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y), but this > > > > > is often not what you want enabled in production. > > > > > > > > > > Darrick, thoughts from an xfs perspective? > > > > > > > > > > Thanx, Paul > > > > > > > > > > > > > >