Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2012 17:30:24 -0500 (EST) From: Rick Macklem <rmacklem@uoguelph.ca> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Tim Kientzle <kientzle@freebsd.org>, freebsd-current Current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: r244036 kernel hangs under load. Message-ID: <757455047.1332148.1355265024983.JavaMail.root@erie.cs.uoguelph.ca> In-Reply-To: <20121211221017.GC3013@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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 <ctrl><alt><esc> 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 <pid>' 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 <ctrl><alt><esc> 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 <ctrl><alt><esc>, what I get looks the same, so I don't think I'm just getting what is happening "at that moment". 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... 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. rick
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?757455047.1332148.1355265024983.JavaMail.root>