[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZF5YVNdeVNSoG08p@tycho.pizza>
Date: Fri, 12 May 2023 09:16:36 -0600
From: Tycho Andersen <tycho@...ho.pizza>
To: Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>
Cc: "Darrick J . Wong" <djwong@...nel.org>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Tycho Andersen <tandersen@...flix.com>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: don't do inodgc work if task is exiting
On Fri, May 12, 2023 at 11:45:47AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> Yeah, this is papering over the observed symptom, not addressing the
> root cause of the inodegc flush delay. What do you see when you run
> sysrq-w and sysrq-l? Are there inodegc worker threads blocked
> performing inodegc?
I will try this next time we encounter this.
> e.g. inodegc flushes could simply be delayed by an unlinked inode
> being processed that has millions of extents that need to be freed.
>
> In reality, inode reclaim can block for long periods of time
> on any filesystem, so the concept of "inode reclaim should
> not block when PF_EXITING" is not a behaviour that we guarantee
> anywhere or could guarantee across the board.
>
> Let's get to the bottom of why inodegc has apparently stalled before
> trying to work out how to fix it...
I'm happy to try, but I think it is also worth applying this patch.
Like I said in the other thread, having to evac a box to get rid of an
unkillable userspace process is annoying.
Thanks for the debugging tips.
Tycho
Powered by blists - more mailing lists