Re: rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU: Workqueue: xfs-conv/md0 xfs_end_io

[Darrick J. Wong]

On Mon, Feb 09, 2021 at 09:11:40AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 10:44:58AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 06:57:24AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 08, 2021 at 09:07:24AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 09:12:40AM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Feb 05, 2021 at 08:29:06AM +0100, Paul Menzel wrote:
> > > > > > Dear Linux folks,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > On a Dell PowerEdge T630/0NT78X, BIOS 2.8.0 05/23/2018 with Linux 5.4.57, we
> > > > > > twice saw a self-detected stall on a CPU (October 27th, 2020, January 18th,
> > > > > > 2021).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Both times, the workqueue is `xfs-conv/md0 xfs_end_io`.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > [    0.000000] Linux version 5.4.57.mx64.340
> > > > > > (root@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) (gcc version 7.5.0 (GCC)) #1 SMP Tue Aug 11
> > > > > > 13:20:33 CEST 2020
> > > > > > […]
> > > > > > [48962.981257] rcu: INFO: rcu_sched self-detected stall on CPU
> > > > > > [48962.987511] rcu: 	4-....: (20999 ticks this GP)
> > > > > > idle=fe6/1/0x4000000000000002 softirq=3630188/3630188 fqs=4696
> > > > > > [48962.998805] 	(t=21017 jiffies g=14529009 q=32263)
> > > > > > [48963.004074] Task dump for CPU 4:
> > > > > > [48963.007689] kworker/4:2     R  running task        0 25587      2
> > > > > > 0x80004008
> > > > > > [48963.015591] Workqueue: xfs-conv/md0 xfs_end_io
> > > > > > [48963.020570] Call Trace:
> > > > > > [48963.023311]  <IRQ>
> > > > > > [48963.025560]  sched_show_task+0x11e/0x150
> > > > > > [48963.029957]  rcu_dump_cpu_stacks+0x70/0xa0
> > > > > > [48963.034545]  rcu_sched_clock_irq+0x502/0x770
> > > > > > [48963.039322]  ? tick_sched_do_timer+0x60/0x60
> > > > > > [48963.044106]  update_process_times+0x24/0x60
> > > > > > [48963.048791]  tick_sched_timer+0x37/0x70
> > > > > > [48963.053089]  __hrtimer_run_queues+0x11f/0x2b0
> > > > > > [48963.057960]  ? recalibrate_cpu_khz+0x10/0x10
> > > > > > [48963.062744]  hrtimer_interrupt+0xe5/0x240
> > > > > > [48963.067235]  smp_apic_timer_interrupt+0x6f/0x130
> > > > > > [48963.072407]  apic_timer_interrupt+0xf/0x20
> > > > > > [48963.076994]  </IRQ>
> > > > > > [48963.079347] RIP: 0010:_raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore+0xa/0x10
> > > > > > [48963.085491] Code: f3 90 83 e8 01 75 e8 65 8b 3d 42 0f 56 7e e8 ed ea 5e
> > > > > > ff 48 29 e8 4c 39 e8 76 cf 80 0b 08 eb 8c 0f 1f 44 00 00 c6 07 00 56 9d <c3>
> > > > > > 0f 1f 44 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 b8 00 fe ff ff f0 0f c1 07 56 9d
> > > > > > [48963.106524] RSP: 0018:ffffc9000738fd40 EFLAGS: 00000202 ORIG_RAX:
> > > > > > ffffffffffffff13
> > > > > > [48963.115003] RAX: ffffffff82407588 RBX: ffffffff82407580 RCX:
> > > > > > ffffffff82407588
> > > > > > [48963.122994] RDX: ffffffff82407588 RSI: 0000000000000202 RDI:
> > > > > > ffffffff82407580
> > > > > > [48963.130989] RBP: 0000000000000202 R08: ffffffff8203ea00 R09:
> > > > > > 0000000000000001
> > > > > > [48963.138982] R10: ffffc9000738fbb8 R11: 0000000000000001 R12:
> > > > > > ffffffff82407588
> > > > > > [48963.146976] R13: ffffea005e7ae600 R14: ffff8897b7e5a040 R15:
> > > > > > ffffea005e7ae600
> > > > > > [48963.154971]  wake_up_page_bit+0xe0/0x100
> > > > > > [48963.159366]  xfs_destroy_ioend+0xce/0x1c0
> > > > > > [48963.163857]  xfs_end_ioend+0xcf/0x1a0
> > > > > > [48963.167958]  xfs_end_io+0xa4/0xd0
> > > > > > [48963.171672]  process_one_work+0x1e5/0x410
> > > > > > [48963.176163]  worker_thread+0x2d/0x3c0
> > > > > > [48963.180265]  ? cancel_delayed_work+0x90/0x90
> > > > > > [48963.185048]  kthread+0x117/0x130
> > > > > > [48963.188663]  ? kthread_create_worker_on_cpu+0x70/0x70
> > > > > > [48963.194321]  ret_from_fork+0x35/0x40
> > > > > > ```
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > As it’s just log level INFO, is there anything what should be done, or was
> > > > > > the system probably just “overloaded”?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I am assuming that you are building your kernel with CONFIG_PREEMPT_NONE=y
> > > > > rather than CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y.
> > > > > 
> > > > > If so, and if the problem is that you are temporarily overdriving xfs I/O,
> > > > > one approach would be as follows:
> > > > > 
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > 
> > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > > > > index f16d5f1..06be426 100644
> > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c
> > > > > @@ -390,6 +390,7 @@ xfs_end_io(
> > > > >  		list_del_init(&ioend->io_list);
> > > > >  		xfs_ioend_try_merge(ioend, &completion_list);
> > > > >  		xfs_end_ioend(ioend);
> > > > > +		cond_resched();
> > > > >  	}
> > > > >  }
> > > > >  
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > 
> > > > FWIW, this looks quite similar to the problem I attempted to fix with
> > > > these patches:
> > > > 
> > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20201002153357.56409-1-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx/
> > > 
> > > Looks plausible to me!  Do you plan to re-post taking the feedback
> > > into account?
> > 
> > There was a v2 inline that incorporated some directed feedback.
> > Otherwise there were questions and ideas about making the whole thing
> > faster, but I've no idea if that addresses the problem or not (if so,
> > that would be an entirely different set of patches). I'll wait and see
> > what Darrick thinks about this and rebase/repost if the approach is
> > agreeable..
> 
> There is always the school of thought that says that the best way to
> get people to focus on this is to rebase and repost.  Otherwise, they
> are all too likely to assume that you lost interest in this.

I was hoping that a better solution would emerge for clearing
PageWriteback on hundreds of thousands of pages, but nothing easy popped
out.

The hardcoded threshold in "[PATCH v2 2/2] xfs: kick extra large ioends
to completion workqueue" gives me unease because who's to say if marking
262,144 pages on a particular CPU will actually stall it long enough to
trip the hangcheck?  Is the number lower on (say) some pokey NAS box
with a lot of storage but a slow CPU?

That said, /some/ threshold is probably better than no threshold.  Could
someone try to confirm if that series of Brian's fixes this problem too?

--D

> 							Thanx, Paul
> 
> > Brian
> > 
> > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > > Brian
> > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > > If you have instead built with CONFIG_PREEMPT_VOLUNTARY=y, then your
> > > > > problem is likely massive lock contention in wake_up_page_bit(), or
> > > > > perhaps someone having failed to release that lock.  The usual way to
> > > > > work this out is by enabling lockdep (CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y), but this
> > > > > is often not what you want enabled in production.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Darrick, thoughts from an xfs perspective?
> > > > > 
> > > > > 							Thanx, Paul
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> >