Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > > > I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock. > > lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock > btw, while we are at it, I am not able to reproduce this with test10-pre5 but am still running tests with higher and higher load... I will let you know if something of interest happens. regards, Tigran - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: > I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock. lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock cheers, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock. lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock cheers, Rik -- "What you're running that piece of shit Gnome?!?!" -- Miguel de Icaza, UKUUG 2000 http://www.conectiva.com/ http://www.surriel.com/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
On Thu, 26 Oct 2000, Rik van Riel wrote: On Wed, 25 Oct 2000, Roger Larsson wrote: I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock. lru_list_lock != pagemap_lru_lock btw, while we are at it, I am not able to reproduce this with test10-pre5 but am still running tests with higher and higher load... I will let you know if something of interest happens. regards, Tigran - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Not. It does not lock anything else... This was not a problem. /RogerL Roger Larsson wrote: > > Hi again, > > Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk - > it will give problems later - in alloc... > > It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the > other ones too... > > /RogerL > > -- > Home page: > http://www.norran.net/nra02596/ > - > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Home page: http://www.norran.net/nra02596/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Hi again, Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk - it will give problems later - in alloc... It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the other ones too... /RogerL -- Home page: http://www.norran.net/nra02596/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Found a strange one.
getblk releases hash_table_lock and lru_list_lock
before calling refill_freelist that calls grow_buffers
that locks free_list[].lock
- lru_lock and hash_table_lock not held, violating
deadlock prevention rules in beginning of file.
patch.
in getblk move the call to refill_freelist before
releasing the locks - ok?
/RogerL
Roger Larsson wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
> Then it tries to lock some others - maybe one of the other treads
> got one of those (hash_table_lock, free_list[index].lock)
> It fits with that proc 4 it executes in the beginning of
> try_to_free_buffers, does it move?
> Or is it stuck at a spin lock there - which one? disassembly of
> try_to_free_buffers?
>
> /RogerL
>
> Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan wrote:
> >
> > Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi guys,
> > >
> > > When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
> > > machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
> > >
> > > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
> > >
> > > (probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
> > >
> > > and the machine locked up (but pingable). So I entered kdb and got stack
> > > traces of all running proceeses:
> >
> > Hmm. It appears that some of the processes are stuck on this
> > part of page_launder:
> >
> > /*
> > * Re-take the spinlock. Note that we cannot
> > * unlock the page yet since we're still
> > * accessing the page_struct here...
> > */
> > spin_lock(_lru_lock);
> >
> > It will be interesting to see what's going on in each of the cpus.
> > Use "cpu x" x=0,1,2,3 on your 4 cpu system to switch to cpu x,
> > and just type "bt" on each cpu. Also, it will be good to see what
> > kswapd (pid 2) is upto ...
> >
> > --
> > Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth")
> > Member Technical Staff, SGI.
> > --
> > -
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> --
> Home page:
> http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Hi,
I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
Then it tries to lock some others - maybe one of the other treads
got one of those (hash_table_lock, free_list[index].lock)
It fits with that proc 4 it executes in the beginning of
try_to_free_buffers, does it move?
Or is it stuck at a spin lock there - which one? disassembly of
try_to_free_buffers?
/RogerL
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan wrote:
>
> Tigran Aivazian wrote:
> >
> > Hi guys,
> >
> > When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
> > machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
> >
> > __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
> >
> > (probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
> >
> > and the machine locked up (but pingable). So I entered kdb and got stack
> > traces of all running proceeses:
>
> Hmm. It appears that some of the processes are stuck on this
> part of page_launder:
>
> /*
> * Re-take the spinlock. Note that we cannot
> * unlock the page yet since we're still
> * accessing the page_struct here...
> */
> spin_lock(_lru_lock);
>
> It will be interesting to see what's going on in each of the cpus.
> Use "cpu x" x=0,1,2,3 on your 4 cpu system to switch to cpu x,
> and just type "bt" on each cpu. Also, it will be good to see what
> kswapd (pid 2) is upto ...
>
> --
> Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth")
> Member Technical Staff, SGI.
> --
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
>
> Hi guys,
>
> When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
> machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
>
> __alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
>
> (probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
>
> and the machine locked up (but pingable). So I entered kdb and got stack
> traces of all running proceeses:
Hmm. It appears that some of the processes are stuck on this
part of page_launder:
/*
* Re-take the spinlock. Note that we cannot
* unlock the page yet since we're still
* accessing the page_struct here...
*/
spin_lock(_lru_lock);
It will be interesting to see what's going on in each of the cpus.
Use "cpu x" x=0,1,2,3 on your 4 cpu system to switch to cpu x,
and just type "bt" on each cpu. Also, it will be good to see what
kswapd (pid 2) is upto ...
--
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth")
Member Technical Staff, SGI.
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
Hi guys,
When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
(probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
and the machine locked up (but pingable). So I entered kdb and got stack
traces of all running proceeses:
Hmm. It appears that some of the processes are stuck on this
part of page_launder:
/*
* Re-take the spinlock. Note that we cannot
* unlock the page yet since we're still
* accessing the page_struct here...
*/
spin_lock(pagemap_lru_lock);
It will be interesting to see what's going on in each of the cpus.
Use "cpu x" x=0,1,2,3 on your 4 cpu system to switch to cpu x,
and just type "bt" on each cpu. Also, it will be good to see what
kswapd (pid 2) is upto ...
--
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth")
Member Technical Staff, SGI.
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Hi,
I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
Then it tries to lock some others - maybe one of the other treads
got one of those (hash_table_lock, free_list[index].lock)
It fits with that proc 4 it executes in the beginning of
try_to_free_buffers, does it move?
Or is it stuck at a spin lock there - which one? disassembly of
try_to_free_buffers?
/RogerL
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan wrote:
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
Hi guys,
When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
(probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
and the machine locked up (but pingable). So I entered kdb and got stack
traces of all running proceeses:
Hmm. It appears that some of the processes are stuck on this
part of page_launder:
/*
* Re-take the spinlock. Note that we cannot
* unlock the page yet since we're still
* accessing the page_struct here...
*/
spin_lock(pagemap_lru_lock);
It will be interesting to see what's going on in each of the cpus.
Use "cpu x" x=0,1,2,3 on your 4 cpu system to switch to cpu x,
and just type "bt" on each cpu. Also, it will be good to see what
kswapd (pid 2) is upto ...
--
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth")
Member Technical Staff, SGI.
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Found a strange one.
getblk releases hash_table_lock and lru_list_lock
before calling refill_freelist that calls grow_buffers
that locks free_list[].lock
- lru_lock and hash_table_lock not held, violating
deadlock prevention rules in beginning of file.
patch.
in getblk move the call to refill_freelist before
releasing the locks - ok?
/RogerL
Roger Larsson wrote:
Hi,
I noted that even try_to_free_buffers locks lru_list_lock.
Then it tries to lock some others - maybe one of the other treads
got one of those (hash_table_lock, free_list[index].lock)
It fits with that proc 4 it executes in the beginning of
try_to_free_buffers, does it move?
Or is it stuck at a spin lock there - which one? disassembly of
try_to_free_buffers?
/RogerL
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan wrote:
Tigran Aivazian wrote:
Hi guys,
When running SPEC SFS tests against 2.4.0-test10-pre4 on a 4-way SMP
machine with 6G RAM (highmem+PAE enabled) I got
__alloc_pages: 0-order allocation failed.
(probably coming from nfsd, why don't we print eip of the caller there?)
and the machine locked up (but pingable). So I entered kdb and got stack
traces of all running proceeses:
Hmm. It appears that some of the processes are stuck on this
part of page_launder:
/*
* Re-take the spinlock. Note that we cannot
* unlock the page yet since we're still
* accessing the page_struct here...
*/
spin_lock(pagemap_lru_lock);
It will be interesting to see what's going on in each of the cpus.
Use "cpu x" x=0,1,2,3 on your 4 cpu system to switch to cpu x,
and just type "bt" on each cpu. Also, it will be good to see what
kswapd (pid 2) is upto ...
--
Rajagopal Ananthanarayanan ("ananth")
Member Technical Staff, SGI.
--
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
Home page:
http://www.norran.net/nra02596/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Hi again, Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk - it will give problems later - in alloc... It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the other ones too... /RogerL -- Home page: http://www.norran.net/nra02596/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Re: test10-pre4: deadlock in VM?
Not. It does not lock anything else... This was not a problem. /RogerL Roger Larsson wrote: Hi again, Please ignore my patch suggestion from getblk - it will give problems later - in alloc... It is grow_buffers that might need to lock the other ones too... /RogerL -- Home page: http://www.norran.net/nra02596/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/ -- Home page: http://www.norran.net/nra02596/ - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
