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
> > > (r...@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] <IRQ>
> > > [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] </IRQ>
> > > [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
> > > <c3>
> > > 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-bfos...@redhat.com/
Looks plausible to me! Do you plan to re-post taking the feedback
into account?
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
> >
>
