Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 2 Nov 2015 14:56:33 -0500 | From | Jeff Layton <> | Subject | Re: timer code oops when calling mod_delayed_work |
| |
On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 09:48:41 -1000 Chris Worley <chris.worley@primarydata.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 31, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net> wrote: > > On Sat, 31 Oct 2015 17:31:07 -0400 > > Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org> wrote: > ... > >> > >> > I have asked Chris and Michael to see if they can bisect it down, but > >> > it may be a bit before they can get that done. Any insight you might > >> > have in the meantime would helpful. > >> > >> Yeah, I'd love to find out how reproducible the issue is. If the > >> problem is rarely reproducible, it might make sense to try > >> instrumentation before trying bisection as it *could* be a latent bug > >> which has been there all along and bisecting to the commit introducing > >> the code wouldn't help us too much. > >> > > > > It seems fairly reproducible, at least on v4.3-rc7 kernels: > > > > This came about when I asked them to perf test some nfsd patches that I > > have queued up. I patched a Fedora 4.3-rc7 kernel and wanted to see > > what the perf delta was (with NFSv3, fwiw): > > > > Patched kernels here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11598089 > > > > Unpatched kernels here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=694377 > > > > Michael was using the SPEC SFS VDI workload to test, and was able to > > get the same panic on both kernels. So it does seem to be reproducible. > > It might even be possible to tune the VM to make the shrinker fire more > > often, which may help tickle this more. > > > > In any case, I've asked them to try something v4.2-ish and see if it's > > reproducible there, and then try v4.1 if it is. I figure anything > > earlier is probably not worth testing if it still fails on v4.1. If it > > turns out not to be reproducible on those earlier kernels then we can > > bisect from there to track it down. > > The trick seems to be the NFS thread count: I initially though this > was SFS/VDI specific, but when I ratcheted up the thread count to what > Michael was using, 256 threads oopses on fio (throughput) benchmarks > too. > > In bisecting kernels, it appeared between 4.2.3-200 and 4.2.5-200 (all > the 4.2.4 kernels were bad). > > Jeff has a lead on this... > > Chris
Thanks Chris. This commit went in between those kernels:
commit a7c571f2e3ff9243ba41c242486f53dbca37d864 Author: Shaohua Li <shli@fb.com> Date: Wed Sep 30 09:05:30 2015 -0700
workqueue: make sure delayed work run in local cpu
commit 874bbfe600a660cba9c776b3957b1ce393151b76 upstream.
...and I suspect that it's the culprit. That commit causes this code to always use add_timer_on, which seems to have different semantics from add_timer.
I'm going to build a v4.2.5 kernel with that patch reverted to confirm it, but it seems likely...
-- Jeff Layton <jlayton@poochiereds.net>
| |