On Jan 3, 2013, at 6:26 PM, "Myklebust, Trond"
wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 18:11 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
>> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 17:26 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
>>> Ooh, BTW, there was a bug where workqueue code created a false
>>> dependency between two work items. Workqueue currently
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 18:11 -0500, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 17:26 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > Ooh, BTW, there was a bug where workqueue code created a false
> > dependency between two work items. Workqueue currently considers two
> > work items to be the same if they're on th
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 17:26 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Trond.
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:12:32PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > The analysis is likely completely wrong, so please don't go off doing
> > > something unnecessary. Please take look at what's causing the
> > > deadlocks
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 05:03:09PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, guys.
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:28:37PM +, Adamson, Dros wrote:
> > The deadlock we were seeing was:
> >
> > - task A gets queued on rpciod workqueue and assigned kworker-0:0
> > - task B gets queued on rpciod workqueue
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 05:26:39PM -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello, Trond.
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:12:32PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > > The analysis is likely completely wrong, so please don't go off doing
> > > something unnecessary. Please take look at what's causing the
> > > de
Hello, Trond.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 10:12:32PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> > The analysis is likely completely wrong, so please don't go off doing
> > something unnecessary. Please take look at what's causing the
> > deadlocks again.
>
> The analysis is a no-brainer:
> We see a deadlock d
It's getting a bit repetitive but I really wanna steer people away
from implementing separate kthreads for wrong reasons. kthread is
surprisingly difficult to get right especially around freezing /
exiting / hotplugs and people get it subtly wrong very often.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 03:52:21PM -0
On Thu, 2013-01-03 at 17:08 -0500, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
>
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 03:11:20PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > Both rpciod and nfsiod already set WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.
> >
> > But, right, looking at kernel/workqueue.c, it seems that the dedicated
> > "rescuer" threads are invoked
Hello,
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 03:11:20PM -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> Both rpciod and nfsiod already set WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.
>
> But, right, looking at kernel/workqueue.c, it seems that the dedicated
> "rescuer" threads are invoked only in the case when work is stalled
> because a new worker thre
Hello, guys.
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:28:37PM +, Adamson, Dros wrote:
> The deadlock we were seeing was:
>
> - task A gets queued on rpciod workqueue and assigned kworker-0:0
> - task B gets queued on rpciod workqueue and assigned the same kworker
> (kworker-0:0)
> - task A gets run, calls
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 08:27:20PM +, Adamson, Dros wrote:
>
> On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:28:37PM +, Adamson, Dros wrote:
> >> Hey, sorry for the late response, I've been on vacation.
> >>
> >> On Dec 21, 2012, at 6:45 PM, J. Bruc
On Jan 3, 2013, at 3:11 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:28:37PM +, Adamson, Dros wrote:
>> Hey, sorry for the late response, I've been on vacation.
>>
>> On Dec 21, 2012, at 6:45 PM, J. Bruce Fields
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:36:51PM +, Myklebu
On Thu, Jan 03, 2013 at 04:28:37PM +, Adamson, Dros wrote:
> Hey, sorry for the late response, I've been on vacation.
>
> On Dec 21, 2012, at 6:45 PM, J. Bruce Fields
> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:36:51PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> >> Please reread what I said. There was no
Hey, sorry for the late response, I've been on vacation.
On Dec 21, 2012, at 6:45 PM, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:36:51PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
>> Please reread what I said. There was no obvious circular dependency,
>> because nfsiod and rpciod are separate workq
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:36:51PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> Please reread what I said. There was no obvious circular dependency,
> because nfsiod and rpciod are separate workqueues, both created with
> WQ_MEM_RECLAIM.
Oh, sorry, I read "rpciod" as "nfsiod"!
> Dros' experience shows, howev
assuming the former.
From: J. Bruce Fields [bfie...@fieldses.org]
Sent: Friday, December 21, 2012 6:26 PM
To: Myklebust, Trond
Cc: Dave Jones; Linux Kernel; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; Adamson, Dros
Subject: Re: nfsd oops on Linus' current tree.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:15:40P
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 11:15:40PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> Apologies for top-posting. The SSD on my laptop died, and so I'm stuck using
> webmail for this account...
Fun! If that happens to me on this trip, I've got a week trying to hack
the kernel from my cell phone
> Our experien
mber 21, 2012 6:08 PM
To: Myklebust, Trond
Cc: Dave Jones; Linux Kernel; linux-...@vger.kernel.org; Adamson, Dros
Subject: Re: nfsd oops on Linus' current tree.
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:40:54PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 13:08 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 06:40:54PM +, Myklebust, Trond wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 13:08 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> > On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:33:48AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > > Did a mount from a client (also running Linus current), and the
> > > server spat this out..
> > >
> >
On Fri, 2012-12-21 at 13:08 -0500, J. Bruce Fields wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:33:48AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> > Did a mount from a client (also running Linus current), and the
> > server spat this out..
> >
> > [ 6936.306135] [ cut here ]
> > [ 6936.306154] WARN
On Fri, Dec 21, 2012 at 10:33:48AM -0500, Dave Jones wrote:
> Did a mount from a client (also running Linus current), and the
> server spat this out..
>
> [ 6936.306135] [ cut here ]
> [ 6936.306154] WARNING: at net/sunrpc/clnt.c:617
> rpc_shutdown_client+0x12a/0x1b0 [sunr
21 matches
Mail list logo
