linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] NFS regression in 2.6.26?, "task blocked for more than 120 seconds"

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20081017143301.GA18522@poweredge.glommer>
Date:	Fri, 17 Oct 2008 12:33:01 -0200
From:	Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>
To:	Max Kellermann <mk@...all.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, gcosta@...hat.com, ijc@...lion.org.uk
Subject: Re: [PATCH] NFS regression in 2.6.26?, "task blocked for more than
	120 seconds"

On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 02:32:07PM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Ian: this is a follow-up to your post "NFS regression? Odd delays and
> lockups accessing an NFS export" a few weeks ago
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/9/27/42).
> 
> I am able to trigger this bug within a few minutes on a customer's
> machine (large web hoster, a *lot* of NFS traffic).
> 
> Symptom: with 2.6.26 (2.6.27.1, too), load goes to 100+, dmesg says
> "INFO: task migration/2:9 blocked for more than 120 seconds." with
> varying task names.  Except for the high load average, the machine
> seems to work.
> 
> With git bisect, I was finally able to identify the guilty commit,
> it's not "Ensure we zap only the access and acl caches when setting
> new acls" like you guessed, Ian.  According to my bisect,
> 6becedbb06072c5741d4057b9facecb4b3143711 is the origin of the problem.
> e481fcf8563d300e7f8875cae5fdc41941d29de0 (its parent) works well.
> 
> Glauber: that is your patch "x86: minor adjustments for do_boot_cpu"
> (http://lkml.org/lkml/2008/3/19/143).  I don't understand this patch
> well, and I fail to see a connection with the symptom, but maybe
> somebody else does...
> 
> See patch below (applies to 2.6.27.1).  So far, it looks like the
> problem is solved on the server, no visible side effects.
> 
> Max
That's probably something related to apic congestion.
Does the problem go away if the only thing you change is this:


> @@ -891,11 +897,6 @@ do_rest:
>  		store_NMI_vector(&nmi_high, &nmi_low);
>  
>  		smpboot_setup_warm_reset_vector(start_ip);
> -		/*
> -		 * Be paranoid about clearing APIC errors.
> -	 	*/
> -		apic_write(APIC_ESR, 0);
> -		apic_read(APIC_ESR);
>  	}


Please let me know.

--
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/