linux-kernel - Re: page allocation stall in kernel 4.9 when copying files from one btrfs hdd to another

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: <20161214113801.Horde.7x_Zt-D5pNHPPt_kFjheOyx@secure.prnet.org>
Date:   Wed, 14 Dec 2016 11:38:01 +0000
From:   admin <admin@...et.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        David Sterba <dsterba@...e.cz>, Chris Mason <clm@...com>
Subject: Re: page allocation stall in kernel 4.9 when copying files from one
 btrfs hdd to another

Hi,

I verified the log files and see no prior oom killer invocation. Unfortunately the machine has been rebooted since. Next time it happens, I will also look in dmesg.

Thanks,
David Arendt 


Michal Hocko – Wed., 14. December 2016 11:31
> Btw. the stall should be preceded by the OOM killer invocation. Could
> you share the OOM report please. I am asking because such an OOM killer
> would be clearly pre-mature as per your meminfo. I am trying to change
> that code and seeing your numbers might help me.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> On Wed 14-12-16 11:17:43, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > On Tue 13-12-16 18:11:01, David Arendt wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > I receive the following page allocation stall while copying lots of
> > > large files from one btrfs hdd to another.
> > > 
> > > Dec 13 13:04:29 server kernel: kworker/u16:8: page allocation stalls for 12260ms, order:0, mode:0x2400840(GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL)
> > > Dec 13 13:04:29 server kernel: CPU: 0 PID: 24959 Comm: kworker/u16:8 Tainted: P           O    4.9.0 #1
> > [...]
> > > Dec 13 13:04:29 server kernel: Call Trace:
> > > Dec 13 13:04:29 server kernel:  [<ffffffff813f3a59>] ? dump_stack+0x46/0x5d
> > > Dec 13 13:04:29 server kernel:  [<ffffffff81114fc1>] ? warn_alloc+0x111/0x130
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff81115c38>] ? __alloc_pages_nodemask+0xbe8/0xd30
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff8110de74>] ? pagecache_get_page+0xe4/0x230
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff81323a8b>] ? alloc_extent_buffer+0x10b/0x400
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812ef8c5>] ? btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x125/0x560
> > 
> > OK, so this is
> > 	find_or_create_page(mapping, index, GFP_NOFS|__GFP_NOFAIL)
> > 
> > The main question is whether this really needs to be NOFS request...
> > 
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff8132442f>] ? read_extent_buffer_pages+0x21f/0x280
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812d81f1>] ? __btrfs_cow_block+0x141/0x580
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812d87b0>] ? btrfs_cow_block+0x100/0x150
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812dc1d9>] ?  btrfs_search_slot+0x1e9/0x9c0
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff8131ead2>] ? __set_extent_bit+0x512/0x550
> > > Dec 13 13:04:33 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812e1ab5>] ? lookup_inline_extent_backref+0xf5/0x5e0
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel:  [<ffffffff8131f0a4>] ? set_extent_bit+0x24/0x30
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812e4334>] ? update_block_group.isra.34+0x114/0x380
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812e4694>] ? __btrfs_free_extent.isra.35+0xf4/0xd20
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel:  [<ffffffff8134d561>] ? btrfs_merge_delayed_refs+0x61/0x5d0
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812e8bd2>] ? __btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x902/0x10a0
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812ec0f0>] ? btrfs_run_delayed_refs+0x90/0x2a0
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel:  [<ffffffff812ec384>] ? delayed_ref_async_start+0x84/0xa0
> > 
> > What would cause the reclaim recursion?
> > 
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel: Mem-Info:
> > > Dec 13 13:04:34 server kernel: active_anon:20 inactive_anon:34
> > > isolated_anon:0\x0a active_file:7370032 inactive_file:450105
> > > isolated_file:320\x0a unevictable:0 dirty:522748 writeback:189
> > > unstable:0\x0a slab_reclaimable:178255 slab_unreclaimable:124617\x0a
> > > mapped:4236 shmem:0 pagetables:1163 bounce:0\x0a free:38224 free_pcp:241
> > > free_cma:0
> > 
> > This speaks for itself. There is a lot of dirty data, basically no
> > anonymous memory and GFP_NOFS cannot do much to reclaim obviously. This
> > is either a configuraion bug as somebody noted down the thread (setting
> > the dirty_ratio) or suboptimality of the btrfs code which might request
> > NOFS even though it is not strictly necessary. This would be more for
> > btrfs developers.
> > -- 
> > Michal Hocko
> > SUSE Labs
> 
> -- 
> Michal Hocko
> SUSE Labs