DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version
         :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition
         :references;
        b=sQRfZuCN/0bkw2VXYh5ccfFhriVI2SXSEU2PqpQeT1dTCSpsm+AaBofQw22R4e4xwl
         dNVY6wQn4T+MBL0zdJyJb3sW/7iOmKkgqemz7jaUBi/hgg1HoOvyGo+52uNyk6XmRp30
         odZes9B0eFojeRtEWfPEGfrUYq0Albc7lddDI=
Message-ID: <48f7fe350806200733w4a21aba7n6ccb1a6fb7fcdac5@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:33:22 -0400
From: "Ryan Hope" <rmh3093@gmail.com>
To: "Nick Piggin" <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Subject: Re: [BUG] Lockless patches cause hardlock under heavy IO
Cc: "Peter Zijlstra" <peterz@infradead.org>,
       LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <200806191819.31968.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <48f7fe350806181415l4eba61b3i1d206de03147575e@mail.gmail.com>
	 <1213863122.16944.257.camel@twins>
	 <200806191819.31968.nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2750
Lines: 63

Well if there are no more suggestion we are going to have to abandon
testing lockless for now because it is causing hardlocks on everyones
box who uses it. I hope the next round of patches has better luck.

On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 4:19 AM, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Thursday 19 June 2008 18:12, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Wed, 2008-06-18 at 17:15 -0400, Ryan Hope wrote:
>> > I applied the following patches from 2.6-26-rc5-mm3 to 2.6.26-rc6 and
>> > they caused a hardlock under heavy IO:
>>
>> What kind of machine, how much memory, how many spindles, what
>> filesystem and what is heavy load?
>>
>> Furthermore, try the NMI watchdog with serial/net-console to capture its
>> output.
>
>
> Good suggestions. A trace would be really helpful.
>
> As Arjan suggested, debug options especially CONFIG_DEBUG_VM would be
> a good idea to turn on if you haven't already.
>
> BTW. what was the reason for applying those patches? Did you hit the
> problem with -mm also, and hope to narrow it down?
>
>
>> > x86-implement-pte_special.patch
>> > mm-introduce-get_user_pages_fast.patch
>> > mm-introduce-get_user_pages_fast-fix.patch
>> > mm-introduce-get_user_pages_fast-checkpatch-fixes.patch
>> > x86-lockless-get_user_pages_fast.patch
>> > x86-lockless-get_user_pages_fast-checkpatch-fixes.patch
>> > x86-lockless-get_user_pages_fast-fix.patch
>> > x86-lockless-get_user_pages_fast-fix-2.patch
>> > x86-lockless-get_user_pages_fast-fix-2-fix-fix.patch
>> > x86-lockless-get_user_pages_fast-fix-warning.patch
>> > dio-use-get_user_pages_fast.patch
>> > splice-use-get_user_pages_fast.patch
>> > x86-support-1gb-hugepages-with-get_user_pages_lockless.patch
>> > #
>> > mm-readahead-scan-lockless.patch
>> > radix-tree-add-gang_lookup_slot-gang_lookup_slot_tag.patch
>> > #mm-speculative-page-references.patch: clameter saw bustage
>> > mm-speculative-page-references.patch
>> > mm-speculative-page-references-fix.patch
>> > mm-speculative-page-references-fix-fix.patch
>> > mm-speculative-page-references-hugh-fix3.patch
>> > mm-lockless-pagecache.patch
>> > mm-spinlock-tree_lock.patch
>> > powerpc-implement-pte_special.patch
>> >
>> > I am on an x86_64. I dont know what other info you need...
>
> Can you isolate it to one of the two groups of patches? I suspect it
> might be the latter so you might try that first -- this version of
> speculative page references is very nice in theory but it is a little
> more complex to implement the slowpaths so it could be an error there.
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/