lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Aug]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: cgroup: rmdir() does not complete
    Hi.

    On Thu, 26 Aug 2010 16:51:55 +0100 (BST)
    Mark Hills <mark@pogo.org.uk> wrote:

    > I am experiencing hung tasks when trying to rmdir() on a cgroup. One task
    > spins, others queue up behind it with the following:
    >
    > INFO: task soaked-cgroup:27257 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
    > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
    > soaked-cgrou D ffff8800058157c0 0 27257 29411 0x00000000
    > ffff88004ffffdd8 0000000000000086 ffff88004ffffda8 ffff88004ffffeb8
    > 0000000000000010 ffff880119813780 ffff88004ffffd48 ffff88004fffffd8
    > ffff88004fffffd8 000000000000f9b0 00000000000157c0 ffff880137693268
    > Call Trace:
    > [<ffffffff81115edb>] ? mntput_no_expire+0x24/0xe7
    > [<ffffffff81427acd>] __mutex_lock_common+0x14d/0x1b4
    > [<ffffffff81108a7c>] ? path_put+0x1d/0x22
    > [<ffffffff81427b48>] __mutex_lock_slowpath+0x14/0x16
    > [<ffffffff81427c4f>] mutex_lock+0x31/0x4b
    > [<ffffffff8110bdf8>] do_rmdir+0x74/0x102
    > [<ffffffff8110bebd>] sys_rmdir+0x11/0x13
    > [<ffffffff81009b02>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
    >
    > Kernel is from Fedora, 2.6.33.6. In all cases the cgroup contains no
    > tasks.
    >
    > Commit ec64f5 ("fix frequent -EBUSY at rmdir") adds a busy wait loop to
    > the rmdir. It looks like what I am seeing here and indicates that some
    > cgroup subsystem is busy, indefinitely.
    >
    The commit had caused a bug about rmdir, but it was fixed by the commit 88703267.
    The fix was merged in 2.6.31, so it seems that you hit a new one...

    > I have not worked out how to reproduce it quickly. My only way is to
    > complete a 'dd' command in the cgroup, but then the problem is so rare it
    > is slow progress.
    >
    > Documentation/cgroup.memory.txt describes how force_empty can be required
    > in some cases. Does this mean that with the patch above, these cases will
    > now spin on rmdir(), instead of returning -EBUSY? How can produce a
    > reliable test case requiring memory.force_empty to be used, to test this?
    >
    You don't need to touch "force_empty". rmdir() does what "force_empty" does.

    > Or is it likely to be some other cause, and how best to find it?
    >
    What cgroup subsystem did you mount where the directory existed you tried
    to rmdir() first ?
    If you mounted several subsystems on the same hierarchy, can you mount them
    separately to narrow down the cause ?


    Thanks,
    Daisuke Nishimura.


    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2010-08-27 03:07    [W:0.030 / U:0.424 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site