| lists.openwall.net | 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 linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Message-ID: <d4b6d3ea0808191100m17ab13cbnb9a1a8a06f2e22e0@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2008 14:00:24 -0400
From: "Michael Madore" <michael.madore@...il.com>
To: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: INFO: task blocked for more than 120 seconds
> On Tue, Aug 12, 2008 at 11:47:35PM +0530, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 11:27:12AM -0700, Randy Dunlap wrote:
>> > On 2.6.27-rc2-git4 and several previous kernels, I see several
>> > of these messages. E.g.:
>> >
>> > INFO: task kjournald:665 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> > INFO: task stress:17797 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> > INFO: task stress:17805 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> >
>> >
>> > Has anyone tracked this down? Should I attempt to bisect it?
>> > (on x86_64, SMP, 8 GB RAM)
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > INFO: task kjournald:665 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>> > kjournald D ffff88027e04be30 4592 665 2
>> > ffff88027e04bdd0 0000000000000046 ffff88027e04bd90 ffffffff8022b5f8
>> > ffff88027e703090 ffff880178c91bc0 ffff88027e7033d0 0000000178c91c08
>> > ffff88027e04bdb0 ffff88027e04be30 ffff88017eaf80f0 0000000000000246
>> > Call Trace:
>> > [<ffffffff8022b5f8>] ? __wake_up_common+0x41/0x74
>> > [<ffffffff802f6eef>] journal_commit_transaction+0xe9/0xd7e
>> > [<ffffffff8023db06>] ? lock_timer_base+0x26/0x4a
>> > [<ffffffff80247240>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38
>> > [<ffffffff8023db80>] ? try_to_del_timer_sync+0x56/0x62
>> > [<ffffffff802fa388>] kjournald+0xc3/0x1fb
>> > [<ffffffff80247240>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38
>> > [<ffffffff802fa2c5>] ? kjournald+0x0/0x1fb
>> > [<ffffffff80247107>] kthread+0x49/0x76
>> > [<ffffffff8020ce39>] child_rip+0xa/0x11
>> > [<ffffffff802470be>] ? kthread+0x0/0x76
>> > [<ffffffff8020ce2f>] ? child_rip+0x0/0x11
>> >
>> > INFO: task stress:17797 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
>> > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
>> > stress D ffff88017eaf8024 5088 17797 17795
>> > ffff8801f4055cd8 0000000000000082 0000000000000086 ffff88027e04bec0
>> > ffff880178c93090 ffff88017faf75f0 ffff880178c933d0 0000000300000001
>> > 0000000000000292 ffff8801f4055ce8 ffff88017eaf80a8 0000000000000246
>> > Call Trace:
>> > [<ffffffff802f9c04>] log_wait_commit+0xa4/0xf4
>> > [<ffffffff80247240>] ? autoremove_wake_function+0x0/0x38
>> > [<ffffffff802f5798>] journal_stop+0x17c/0x1a9
>> > [<ffffffff802f5fe6>] journal_force_commit+0x23/0x25
>> > [<ffffffff802eee53>] ext3_force_commit+0x26/0x28
>> > [<ffffffff802e91d2>] ext3_write_inode+0x39/0x3f
>> > [<ffffffff802b58cf>] __writeback_single_inode+0x180/0x284
>> > [<ffffffff80247278>] ? wake_bit_function+0x0/0x2a
>> > [<ffffffff802b5db1>] generic_sync_sb_inodes+0x1c3/0x29e
>> > [<ffffffff802b5e95>] sync_sb_inodes+0x9/0xb
>> > [<ffffffff802b5f2c>] sync_inodes_sb+0x95/0x9c
>> > [<ffffffff802b5f95>] __sync_inodes+0x62/0xaf
>> > [<ffffffff802b6010>] sync_inodes+0x2e/0x33
>> > [<ffffffff802b8908>] do_sync+0x34/0x59
>> > [<ffffffff802b893b>] sys_sync+0xe/0x13
>> > [<ffffffff8020beeb>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>> >
>>
>> Committing a transaction would means writing rest of the meta-data in
>> the transaction. And that would imply forcing most of the buffer_heads
>> to disk in ordered mode. This can result a lot of seeks and make take
>> more thatn 120 seconds.
>
>
> Both Randy and Greg reported getting this for 2.6.27-rc but not
> for 2.6.26.
>
> Why are people getting such messages for 2.6.27-rc but not for 2.6.26?
Hi,
I have reported getting these messages on 2.6.26:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=121796211813099&w=2
In addition to the system mentioned in that posting, I have just
reproduced it by stress testing a system with 2 Opteron processors,
2GB of RAM and 2 SATA disks.
Backing out this patch seems to help:
commit cc19747977824ece6aa1c56a29e974fef5ec2b32
Author: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
Date: Fri Apr 20 20:45:39 2007 +0200
cfq-iosched: tighten queue request overlap condition
For tagged devices, allow overlap of requests if the idle window
isn't enabled on the current active queue.
Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@...cle.com>
diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
index a8237be..e859b49 100644
--- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
+++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
@@ -989,7 +989,8 @@ static struct cfq_queue *cfq_select_queue(struct
cfq_data *cfqd)
* flight or is idling for a new request, allow either of these
* conditions to happen (or time out) before selecting a new queue.
*/
- if (cfqq->dispatched || timer_pending(&cfqd->idle_slice_timer)) {
+ if (timer_pending(&cfqd->idle_slice_timer) ||
+ (cfqq->dispatched && cfq_cfqq_idle_window(cfqq))) {
cfqq = NULL;
goto keep_queue;
}
Mike Madore
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists