From: Jan Kara Subject: Re: DIO process stuck apparently due to dioread_nolock (3.0) Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:59:43 +0200 Message-ID: <20110811115943.GF4755@quack.suse.cz> References: <4E4262A5.6030903@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org To: Michael Tokarev Return-path: Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:44069 "EHLO mx2.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754171Ab1HKL7q (ORCPT ); Thu, 11 Aug 2011 07:59:46 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4E4262A5.6030903@msgid.tls.msk.ru> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hello, On Wed 10-08-11 14:51:17, Michael Tokarev wrote: > For a few days I'm evaluating various options to use > storage. I'm interested in concurrent direct I/O > (oracle rdbms workload). > > I noticed that somehow, ext4fs in mixed read-write > test greatly prefers writes over reads - writes goes > at full speed while reads are almost non-existent. > > Sandeen on IRC pointed me at dioread_nolock mount > option, which I tried with great results, if not > one "but". > > There's a deadlock somewhere, which I can't trigger > "on demand" - I can't hit the right condition. It > happened twice in a row already, each time after the > same scenario (more about that later). > > When it happens, a process doing direct AIO stalls > infinitely, with the following backtrace: > > [87550.759848] INFO: task oracle:23176 blocked for more than 120 seconds. > [87550.759892] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > [87550.759955] oracle D 0000000000000000 0 23176 1 0x00000000 > [87550.760006] ffff8820457b47d0 0000000000000082 ffff880600000000 ffff881278e3f7d0 > [87550.760085] ffff8806215c1fd8 ffff8806215c1fd8 ffff8806215c1fd8 ffff8820457b47d0 > [87550.760163] ffffea0010bd7c68 ffffffff00000000 ffff882045512ef8 ffffffff810eeda2 > [87550.760245] Call Trace: > [87550.760285] [] ? __do_fault+0x422/0x520 > [87550.760327] [] ? kmem_getpages+0x5d/0x170 > [87550.760367] [] ? ____cache_alloc_node+0x48/0x140 > [87550.760430] [] ? ext4_file_write+0x20d/0x260 [ext4] > [87550.760475] [] ? abort_exclusive_wait+0xb0/0xb0 > [87550.760523] [] ? ext4_llseek+0x120/0x120 [ext4] > [87550.760566] [] ? aio_rw_vect_retry+0x73/0x1d0 > [87550.760607] [] ? aio_run_iocb+0x5f/0x160 > [87550.760646] [] ? do_io_submit+0x4f8/0x600 > [87550.760689] [] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b Hmm, the stack trace does not quite make sense to me - the part between __do_fault and aio_rw_vect_retry is somehow broken. I can imagine we blocked in ext4_file_write() but I don't see any place there where we would allocate memory. By any chance, are there messages like "Unaligned AIO/DIO on inode ..." in the kernel log? > At this point, the process in question can't be killed or > stopped. Yes it's oracle DB, and I can kill all other processes > of this instance (this one is lgwr, aka log writer), but the stuck > process will continue to be stuck, so it is not an inter-process > deadlock. > > echo "w" > /proc/sysrq-trigger shows only that process, with the > same stack trace. > > This is 3.0.1 kernel from kernel.org (amd64 arch). The system is > a relatively large box (IBM System x3850 X5). So far, I've seen > this issue twice, and each time in the following scenario: > > I copy an oracle database from another machine to filesystem > mounted with dioread_nolock, and right after the copy completes, > I start the database. And immediately when Oracle opens its > DB ("Database opened") I see stuck lgwr process like above. > > So I suspect it happens when there are some unwritten files > in buffer/page cache and some process tries to do direct > writes. > > I haven't seen this happening without dioread_nolock, but since > I don't have an easy reproducer I can't say this mount option > is a requiriment. So far, I was able to trigger it only after > large db copy, with small database I created in order to try > to reproduce it the issue does not happen. > > And sure thing, when it happens, the only way to clean up is > to forcible reboot the machine (echo b > sysrq-trigger). > > I'll continue experiments in a hope to find an easier reproducer, > but the problem is that I've little time left before the machine > in question will go into production. So if anyone have hints > for this issue, please share.. ;) Honza -- Jan Kara SUSE Labs, CR