lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  linux-hardening  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:	Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:59:43 +0200
From:	Jan Kara <>
To:	Michael Tokarev <>
Subject: Re: DIO process stuck apparently due to dioread_nolock (3.0)


On Wed 10-08-11 14:51:17, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> For a few days I'm evaluating various options to use
> storage.  I'm interested in concurrent direct I/O
> (oracle rdbms workload).
> I noticed that somehow, ext4fs in mixed read-write
> test greatly prefers writes over reads - writes goes
> at full speed while reads are almost non-existent.
> Sandeen on IRC pointed me at dioread_nolock mount
> option, which I tried with great results, if not
> one "but".
> There's a deadlock somewhere, which I can't trigger
> "on demand" - I can't hit the right condition.  It
> happened twice in a row already, each time after the
> same scenario (more about that later).
> When it happens, a process doing direct AIO stalls
> infinitely, with the following backtrace:
> [87550.759848] INFO: task oracle:23176 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> [87550.759892] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> [87550.759955] oracle          D 0000000000000000     0 23176      1 0x00000000
> [87550.760006]  ffff8820457b47d0 0000000000000082 ffff880600000000 ffff881278e3f7d0
> [87550.760085]  ffff8806215c1fd8 ffff8806215c1fd8 ffff8806215c1fd8 ffff8820457b47d0
> [87550.760163]  ffffea0010bd7c68 ffffffff00000000 ffff882045512ef8 ffffffff810eeda2
> [87550.760245] Call Trace:
> [87550.760285]  [<ffffffff810eeda2>] ? __do_fault+0x422/0x520
> [87550.760327]  [<ffffffff81111ded>] ? kmem_getpages+0x5d/0x170
> [87550.760367]  [<ffffffff81112e58>] ? ____cache_alloc_node+0x48/0x140
> [87550.760430]  [<ffffffffa0123e6d>] ? ext4_file_write+0x20d/0x260 [ext4]
> [87550.760475]  [<ffffffff8106aee0>] ? abort_exclusive_wait+0xb0/0xb0
> [87550.760523]  [<ffffffffa0123c60>] ? ext4_llseek+0x120/0x120 [ext4]
> [87550.760566]  [<ffffffff81162173>] ? aio_rw_vect_retry+0x73/0x1d0
> [87550.760607]  [<ffffffff8116302f>] ? aio_run_iocb+0x5f/0x160
> [87550.760646]  [<ffffffff81164258>] ? do_io_submit+0x4f8/0x600
> [87550.760689]  [<ffffffff81359b52>] ? system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
  Hmm, the stack trace does not quite make sense to me - the part between
__do_fault and aio_rw_vect_retry is somehow broken. I can imagine we
blocked in ext4_file_write() but I don't see any place there where we would
allocate memory. By any chance, are there messages like "Unaligned AIO/DIO
on inode ..." in the kernel log?

> At this point, the process in question can't be killed or
> stopped.  Yes it's oracle DB, and I can kill all other processes
> of this instance (this one is lgwr, aka log writer), but the stuck
> process will continue to be stuck, so it is not an inter-process
> deadlock.
> echo "w" > /proc/sysrq-trigger shows only that process, with the
> same stack trace.
> This is 3.0.1 kernel from (amd64 arch).  The system is
> a relatively large box (IBM System x3850 X5).  So far, I've seen
> this issue twice, and each time in the following scenario:
> I copy an oracle database from another machine to filesystem
> mounted with dioread_nolock, and right after the copy completes,
> I start the database.  And immediately when Oracle opens its
> DB ("Database opened") I see stuck lgwr process like above.
> So I suspect it happens when there are some unwritten files
> in buffer/page cache and some process tries to do direct
> writes.
> I haven't seen this happening without dioread_nolock, but since
> I don't have an easy reproducer I can't say this mount option
> is a requiriment.  So far, I was able to trigger it only after
> large db copy, with small database I created in order to try
> to reproduce it the issue does not happen.
> And sure thing, when it happens, the only way to clean up is
> to forcible reboot the machine (echo b > sysrq-trigger).
> I'll continue experiments in a hope to find an easier reproducer,
> but the problem is that I've little time left before the machine
> in question will go into production.  So if anyone have hints
> for this issue, please share.. ;)

Jan Kara <>
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at

Powered by blists - more mailing lists