From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Jan 2 20:47:17 2012 Return-Path: Delivered-To: current@FreeBSD.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A0360106566B for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:47:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Received: from gw.catspoiler.org (gw.catspoiler.org [75.1.14.242]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603EA8FC08 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 20:47:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from FreeBSD.org (mousie.catspoiler.org [192.168.101.2]) by gw.catspoiler.org (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id q02Kl3IM005792; Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:47:07 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from truckman@FreeBSD.org) Message-Id: <201201022047.q02Kl3IM005792@gw.catspoiler.org> Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2012 12:47:03 -0800 (PST) From: Don Lewis To: flo@FreeBSD.org In-Reply-To: <4F01F8FD.4020901@FreeBSD.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: attilio@FreeBSD.org, current@FreeBSD.org, mckusick@mckusick.com, phk@phk.freebsd.dk, kib@FreeBSD.org, seanbru@yahoo-inc.com Subject: Re: dogfooding over in clusteradm land X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 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: Mon, 02 Jan 2012 20:47:17 -0000 On 2 Jan, Florian Smeets wrote: > On 29.12.11 01:04, Kirk McKusick wrote: >> Rather than changing BKVASIZE, I would try running the cvs2svn >> conversion on a 16K/2K filesystem and see if that sorts out the >> problem. If it does, it tells us that doubling the main block >> size and reducing the number of buffers by half is the problem. >> If that is the problem, then we will have to increase the KVM >> allocated to the buffer cache. >> > > This does not make a difference. I tried on 32K/4K with/without journal > and on 16K/2K all exhibit the same problem. At some point during the > cvs2svn conversion the sycer starts to use 100% CPU. The whole process > hangs at that point sometimes for hours, from time to time it does > continue doing some work, but really really slow. It's usually between > revision 210000 and 220000, when the resulting svn file gets bigger than > about 11-12Gb. At that point an ls in the target dir hangs in state ufs. > > I broke into ddb and ran all commands which i thought could be useful. > The output is at http://tb.smeets.im/~flo/giant-ape_syncer.txt Tracing command syncer pid 9 tid 100183 td 0xfffffe00120e9000 cpustop_handler() at cpustop_handler+0x2b ipi_nmi_handler() at ipi_nmi_handler+0x50 trap() at trap+0x1a8 nmi_calltrap() at nmi_calltrap+0x8 --- trap 0x13, rip = 0xffffffff8082ba43, rsp = 0xffffff8000270fe0, rbp = 0xffffff88c97829a0 --- _mtx_assert() at _mtx_assert+0x13 pmap_remove_write() at pmap_remove_write+0x38 vm_object_page_remove_write() at vm_object_page_remove_write+0x1f vm_object_page_clean() at vm_object_page_clean+0x14d vfs_msync() at vfs_msync+0xf1 sync_fsync() at sync_fsync+0x12a sync_vnode() at sync_vnode+0x157 sched_sync() at sched_sync+0x1d1 fork_exit() at fork_exit+0x135 fork_trampoline() at fork_trampoline+0xe --- trap 0, rip = 0, rsp = 0xffffff88c9782d00, rbp = 0 --- I thinks this explains why the r228838 patch seems to help the problem. Instead of an application call to msync(), you're getting bitten by the syncer doing the equivalent. I don't know why the syncer is CPU bound, though. From my understanding of the patch it only optimizes the I/O. Without the patch, I would expect that the syncer would just spend a lot of time waiting on I/O. My guess is that this is actually a vm problem. There are nested loops in vm_object_page_clean() and vm_object_page_remove_write(), so you could be doing something that's causing lots of looping in that code. I think that ls is hanging because it's stumbling across the vnode that the syncer has locked.