[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20220908061153.dflgx7fjjav7pxyn@riteshh-domain>
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2022 11:41:53 +0530
From: "Ritesh Harjani (IBM)" <ritesh.list@...il.com>
To: Alexey Lyahkov <alexey.lyashkov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-ext4 <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>,
Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
Artem Blagodarenko <artem.blagodarenko@...il.com>,
Andrew Perepechko <anserper@...ru>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd2: wake up journal waiters in FIFO order, not LIFO
On 22/09/08 08:51AM, Alexey Lyahkov wrote:
> Hi Ritesh,
>
> This was hit on the Lustre OSS node when we have ton’s of short write with sync/(journal commit) in parallel.
> Each write was done from own thread (like 1k-2k threads in parallel).
> It caused a situation when only few/some threads make a wakeup and enter to the transaction until it will be T_LOCKED.
> In our’s observation all handles from head was waked and it’s handles added recently, while old handles still in list and
Thanks Alexey for providing the details.
> It caused a soft lockup messages on console.
Did you mean hung task timeout? I was wondering why will there be soft lockup
warning, because these old handles are anyway in a waiting state right.
Am I missing something?
-ritesh
Powered by blists - more mailing lists