On 7.08.2017 17:12, Angel Shtilianov wrote:
> Hi there,
> I'm investigating sporadic hanging during btrfs umount. The FS is
> contained in a loop mounted file.
> I have no reproduction scenario and the issue may happen once a day or
> once a month. It is rare, but frustrating.
> I have a crashdump (the server has been manually crashed and collected
> a crashdump), so I could take look through the data structures.
> What happens is that umount is getting in D state and a the kernel
> complains about hung tasks. We are using kernel 4.4.y The actual back
> trace is from 4.4.70, but this happens with all the 4.4 kernels I've
> used (4.4.30 through 4.4.70).
> Tasks like:
> INFO: task kworker/u32:9:27574 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> INFO: task kworker/u32:12:27575 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> INFO: task btrfs-transacti:31625 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> are getting blocked waiting for btrfs_tree_read_lock, which is owned
> by task umount:31696 (which is also blocked for more than 120 seconds)
> regarding the lock debug.
>
> umount is hung in "cache_block_group", see the '>' mark:
> while (cache->cached == BTRFS_CACHE_FAST) {
> struct btrfs_caching_control *ctl;
>
> ctl = cache->caching_ctl;
> atomic_inc(&ctl->count);
> prepare_to_wait(&ctl->wait, &wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> spin_unlock(&cache->lock);
>
>> schedule();
>
> finish_wait(&ctl->wait, &wait);
> put_caching_control(ctl);
> spin_lock(&cache->lock);
> }
>
> The complete backtraces could be found in the attached log.
>
> Do you have any ideas ?
> Any help will be greatly appreciated.
So by the looks of it while writing dirty bgs and requiring a free block
for the CoW process, cache_block_group() kicks off a caching thread
which should just go and read in the respective block group. So the
newly spawned caching_thread should actually wake up cache_block_group
either due to success, if it manages to find 2megs:
if (total_found > (1024 * 1024 * 2)) {
or in case of failure after the out label. But in both cases it will set
cache->cached to something different than BTRFS_CACHE_FAST and it ought
to exit the loop.
But from your description of the issue I take it the process never comes
back from the schedule, meaning it missed the wakeup from caching_thread
and atm I cannot see how this could happen. Can you print the state of
the 'cache' parameter of cache_block_group ?
>
> Best regards,
> Angel Shtilianov
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
