Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 30 May 2002 13:03:32 -0700 | From | Mike Fedyk <> | Subject | Re: Processes stuck in D state with autofs + smbfs |
| |
On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 02:36:43PM +0200, Urban Widmark wrote: > On Wed, 29 May 2002, Mike Fedyk wrote: > > > I'm currently running 2.4.19-pre6-vm33 on this 2x664Mhz P3 machine, but I've > > also had the problem in the previous UP machine. > > > > I'm not sure what information will be helpful in debugging this probem. > > Would sysrq+t run through ksymoops be helpful? > > Yes, it could show where the process is stuck. Probably what has happened > is that some process is blocked while holding the smbfs semaphore (there > is one per mount). > > All others will then get stuck in 'D' state trying to get that semaphore. > > The "classic" way to get this is to have a server that is shutdown while > it is mounted. There are patches to help with that (and if I wasn't so > slow sometimes a simple fix would already be in 2.4.something, after > 2.4.19 I promise). >
Yes, the remote server was shut down and caused this problem.
> > I also have this in my kernel log: > > May 26 06:33:16 fileserver kernel: Uhhuh. NMI received. Dazed and confused, but trying to continue > > May 26 06:33:16 fileserver kernel: You probably have a hardware problem with your RAM chips > > However, this error could (but I don't really know what the effects are of > this) potentially stop a process at some random point. If a process > crashes, for example an oops, while holding the semaphore that semaphore > will still be held and everyone trying to get in will stop in D state. >
I will resove this issue soon, but don't forget that the processes stuck in D state has been happening for a while on another machine also.
> > There are some patches here: > http://www.hojdpunkten.ac.se/054/samba/index.html > > But that server appears to be down right now. > > There is one patch that uses poll to help with the problem of a server > that is gone, and another that changes a lot of how smbfs sends requests > and additionaly makes the user processes always(?) be interruptible. >
Do these require any changes to the samba userspace?
> But if the NMIs are killing things at random points then none of those > patches will help.
AFAICT, no processes have been killed. I'm going to try to reproduce this on another machine and I'll post the sysrq+t ksymoops output from that. I'll probably have to do it next week though.
Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |