From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Dec 12 01:58:50 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0FB1018B; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:58:50 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from rmacklem@uoguelph.ca) Received: from esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca (esa-annu.mail.uoguelph.ca [131.104.91.36]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7FF1C8FC12; Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:58:49 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Ap8EAKDjx1CDaFvO/2dsb2JhbAA9CIY3uEVzgh4BAQQBIwRSBRYOCgICDRkCWQYciAIGDKh+gkCQOYEiiygLDIMZgRMDiGCNJ5BIgxGBTzU X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.84,263,1355115600"; d="scan'208";a="4414737" Received: from erie.cs.uoguelph.ca (HELO zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca) ([131.104.91.206]) by esa-annu.net.uoguelph.ca with ESMTP; 11 Dec 2012 20:58:47 -0500 Received: from zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by zcs3.mail.uoguelph.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B27B4081; Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:58:47 -0500 (EST) Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 20:58:47 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem To: Konstantin Belousov Message-ID: <2088105020.1335870.1355277527941.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20121211223839.GE3013@kib.kiev.ua> Subject: Re: r244036 kernel hangs under load. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [172.17.91.203] X-Mailer: Zimbra 6.0.10_GA_2692 (ZimbraWebClient - FF3.0 (Linux)/6.0.10_GA_2692) Cc: Tim Kientzle , freebsd-current Current X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:58:50 -0000 Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 05:30:24PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: > > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 04:55:52PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 07:11:59PM -0500, Rick Macklem wrote: > > > > > > Konstantin Belousov wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Dec 10, 2012 at 01:38:21PM -0500, Rick Macklem > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Adrian Chadd wrote: > > > > > > > > > .. what was the previous kernel version? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hopefully Tim has it narrowed down more, but I don't see > > > > > > > > the hangs on a Sept. 7 kernel from head and I do see > > > > > > > > them > > > > > > > > on a Dec. 3 kernel from head. (Don't know the eact > > > > > > > > rNNNNNN.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems to predate my commit (r244008), which was my > > > > > > > > first > > > > > > > > concern. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I use old single core i386 hardware and can fairly > > > > > > > > reliably > > > > > > > > reproduce it by doing a kernel build and a "svn > > > > > > > > checkout" > > > > > > > > concurrently. No NFS activity. These are running on a > > > > > > > > local > > > > > > > > disk (UFS/FFS). (The kernel I reproduce it on is built > > > > > > > > via > > > > > > > > GENERIC for i386. If you want me to start a "binary > > > > > > > > search" > > > > > > > > for which rNNNNNN, I can do that, but it will take a > > > > > > > > while.:-) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I can get out into DDB, but I'll admit I don't know > > > > > > > > enough > > > > > > > > about it to know where to look;-) > > > > > > > > Here's some lines from "db> ps", in case they give > > > > > > > > someone > > > > > > > > useful information. (I can leave this box sitting in DB > > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > > the rest of to-day, in case someone can suggest what I > > > > > > > > should > > > > > > > > look for on it.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Just snippets... > > > > > > > > Ss pause adjkerntz > > > > > > > > DL sdflush [sofdepflush] > > > > > > > > RL [syncer] > > > > > > > > DL vlruwt [vnlru] > > > > > > > > DL psleep [bufdaemon] > > > > > > > > RL [pagezero] > > > > > > > > DL psleep [vmdaemon] > > > > > > > > DL psleep [pagedaemon] > > > > > > > > DL ccb_scan [xpt_thrd] > > > > > > > > DL waiting_ [sctp_iterator] > > > > > > > > DL ctl_work [ctl_thrd] > > > > > > > > DL cooling [acpi_cooling0] > > > > > > > > DL tzpoll [acpi_thermal] > > > > > > > > DL (threaded) [usb] > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > DL - [yarrow] > > > > > > > > DL (threaded) [geom] > > > > > > > > D - [g_down] > > > > > > > > D - [g_up] > > > > > > > > D - [g_event] > > > > > > > > RL (threaded) [intr] > > > > > > > > I [irq15: ata1] > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > Run CPU0 [swi6: Giant taskq] > > > > > > > > --> does this one indicate the CPU is actually running > > > > > > > > this? > > > > > > > > (after a db> cont, wait a while db> > > > > > > > > ps > > > > > > > > it is still the same) > > > > > > > > I [swi4: clock] > > > > > > > > I [swi1: netisr 0] > > > > > > > > I [swi3: vm] > > > > > > > > RL [idle: cpu0] > > > > > > > > SLs wait [init] > > > > > > > > DL audit_wo [audit] > > > > > > > > DLs (threaded) [kernel] > > > > > > > > D - [deadlkres] > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > D sched [swapper] > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I have no idea if this "ps" output helps, unless it > > > > > > > > indicates > > > > > > > > that it is looping on the Giant taskq? > > > > > > > Might be. You could do 'bt ' for the process to see > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > it > > > > > > > loops. > > > > > > > Another good set of hints is at > > > > > > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/books/developers-handbook/kerneldebug-deadlocks.html > > > > > > > > > > > > Kostik, you must be clairvoyant;-) > > > > > > > > > > > > When I did "show alllocks", I found that the syncer process > > > > > > held > > > > > > - exclusive sleep mutex mount mtx locked @ > > > > > > kern/vfs_subr.c:4720 > > > > > > - exclusive lockmgr syncer locked @ kern/vfs_subr.c:1780 > > > > > > The trace for this process goes like: > > > > > > spinlock_exit > > > > > > mtx_unlock_spin_flags > > > > > > kern_yield > > > > > > _mnt_vnode_next_active > > > > > > vnode_next_active > > > > > > vfs_msync() > > > > > > > > > > > > So, it seems like your r244095 commit might have fixed this? > > > > > > (I'm not good at this stuff, but from your description, it > > > > > > looks > > > > > > like it did the kern_yield() with the mutex held and > > > > > > "maybe" > > > > > > got into trouble trying to acquire Giant?) > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyhow, I'm going to test a kernel with r244095 in it and > > > > > > see > > > > > > if I can still reproduce the hang. > > > > > > (There wasn't much else in the "show alllocks", except a > > > > > > process that held the exclusive vnode interlock mutex plus > > > > > > a ufs vnode lock, but it's just doing a witness_unlock.) > > > > > There must be a thread blocked for the mount interlock for the > > > > > loop > > > > > in the mnt_vnode_next_active to cause livelock. > > > > > > > > > Yes. I am getting hangs with the -current kernel and they seem > > > > easier for me to reproduce. > > > > > > > > For the one I just did, the "syncer" seems to be blocked at > > > > VI_TRYLOCK() in _mnt_vnode_next_active(). > > > trylock cannot block. > > > > > > > The vnode interlock mutex is eclusively locked by a "sh" > > > > process (11627). Now, here is where it gets weird... > > > > When I do a "db> trace 11627" I get the following: > > > > witness_unlock+0x1f3 (subr_witness.c:1563) > > > > mtx_unlock_flags+0x9f (kern_mutex.c:250) > > > > vdropl+0x63 (vfs_subr.c:2405) > > > > vputx+0x130 (vfs_subr.c:2116) > > > > vput+0x10 (vfs_subr.c:2319) > > > > vm_mmap+0x52e (vm_mmap.c:1341) > > > > sys_mmap > > > > > > > > So, it seems this process is stuck while trying to unlock > > > > the mutex, if that makes any sense... > > > It probably not stuck, but just you catched it at this moment. > > > > > > The issue sounds more like a livelock. Can you obtain _all_ the > > > information > > > listed in the deadlock debugging page I sent earlier, and provide > > > it > > > to > > > me ? > > Well, this is a laptop and when it hangs (doesn't do anything, > > except > > sometimes echo characters on the console screen) I > > to get to DB. How can I capture the stuff? (I don't even have a > > digital > > camera. Sorry, but I'm not into that sort of thing.) > > > > When I do a "db> cont" and then another , what I > > get looks the same, so I don't think I'm just getting what is > > happening "at that moment". > It could be that it happens in rapid succession. > > > > > I'll start a binary search on kernel revision #s and try to > > narrow it down to a commit. It will take a while, but... > It is not useful, I just know that it is a consequence of the > r243599+r243835, but I expected that r244095 would help. Still, > if you have single-core machine, than it is possible that it is > a livelock, or rather, a crawl. > Ok, I'll test r243598 and then r243599 and r243835, just to see if it really is this. I'll email when I have done this. > > > > Also, do you use the post-r244095 kernel ? > > > > Before and after. The most recent tests were post-r244095. > > (If anything the more recent kernels hang more easily.) > > > > > > > > > > Is your machine SMP ? > > > > Old, slow single core i386. > > Try this. Please note that this is mostly a debugging facility. > It seemed to help, but didn't stop the hangs completely. r244125 without the patch would hang somewhere in a kernel build. r244125 plus this patch ran almost 2 kernel builds before it got hung. > diff --git a/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c b/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c > index 67e078d..0905eec 100644 > --- a/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c > +++ b/sys/kern/vfs_subr.c > @@ -4727,7 +4727,7 @@ restart: > continue; > } > if (!VI_TRYLOCK(vp)) { > - if (should_yield()) { > + if (1 || should_yield()) { > mtx_unlock(&vnode_free_list_mtx); > kern_yield(PRI_UNCHANGED); > mtx_lock(&vnode_free_list_mtx); > @@ -4778,7 +4778,7 @@ restart: > continue; > } > if (!VI_TRYLOCK(vp)) { > - if (should_yield()) { > + if (1 || should_yield()) { > mtx_unlock(&vnode_free_list_mtx); > kern_yield(PRI_UNCHANGED); > mtx_lock(&vnode_free_list_mtx);