Re: Blocket for more than 120 seconds

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



There are actually more. Like this one:

http://iohq.net/index.php?title=Btrfs:RAID_5_Rsync_Freeze

It seems to be the exact same issue as I have, as I too can't do high
speed rsyncs writing to the btrfs array without blocking (reading is
fine).
Mvh

Hans-Kristian Bakke


On 16 December 2013 00:39, Charles Cazabon
<charlesc-lists-btrfs@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Dec 14, 2013, at 4:19 PM, Hans-Kristian Bakke <hkbakke@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> > # btrfs fi df /storage/storage-vol0/
>> > Data, RAID10: total=13.89TB, used=12.99TB
>> > System, RAID10: total=64.00MB, used=1.19MB
>> > System: total=4.00MB, used=0.00
>> > Metadata, RAID10: total=21.00GB, used=17.59GB
>>
>
>> By my count this is ~ 95.6% full. My past experience with other file
>> systems, including btree file systems, is they get unpredictably fussy when
>> they're this full. I start migration planning once 80% full is reached, and
>> make it a policy to avoid going over 90% full.
>
> For what it's worth, I see exactly the same behaviour on a system where the
> filesystem is only ~60% full, with more than 5TB of free space.  All I have to
> do is copy a single file of several gigabytes to the filesystem (over the
> network, so it's only coming in at ~30MB/s) and I get similar task-blocked
> messages:
>
> INFO: task btrfs-transacti:4118 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> Not tainted 3.12.5-custom+ #10
> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> btrfs-transacti D ffff88082fd14140     0  4118      2 0x00000000
> ffff880805a06040 0000000000000002 ffff8807f7665d40 ffff8808078f2040
> 0000000000014140 ffff8807f7665fd8 ffff8807f7665fd8 ffff880805a06040
> 0000000000000001 ffff88082fd14140 ffff880805a06040 ffff8807f7665c70
> Call Trace:
> [<ffffffff810d1a19>] ? __lock_page+0x66/0x66
> [<ffffffff813b26dd>] ? io_schedule+0x56/0x6c
> [<ffffffff810d1a20>] ? sleep_on_page+0x7/0xc
> [<ffffffff813b0ad6>] ? __wait_on_bit+0x40/0x79
> [<ffffffff810d1df1>] ? find_get_pages_tag+0x66/0x121
> [<ffffffff810d1ad8>] ? wait_on_page_bit+0x72/0x77
> [<ffffffff8105f540>] ? wake_atomic_t_function+0x21/0x21
> [<ffffffff810d218f>] ? filemap_fdatawait_range+0x66/0xfe
> [<ffffffffa0545bb5>] ? clear_extent_bit+0x25d/0x29d [btrfs]
> [<ffffffffa052ff9a>] ? btrfs_wait_marked_extents+0x79/0xca [btrfs]
> [<ffffffffa0530059>] ? btrfs_write_and_wait_transaction+0x6e/0x7e [btrfs]
> [<ffffffffa05307ad>] ? btrfs_commit_transaction+0x651/0x843 [btrfs]
> [<ffffffffa05297e8>] ? transaction_kthread+0xf4/0x191 [btrfs]
> [<ffffffffa05296f4>] ? try_to_freeze_unsafe+0x30/0x30 [btrfs]
> [<ffffffffa05296f4>] ? try_to_freeze_unsafe+0x30/0x30 [btrfs]
> [<ffffffff8105eb45>] ? kthread+0x81/0x89
> [<ffffffff81013291>] ? paravirt_sched_clock+0x5/0x8
> [<ffffffff8105eac4>] ? __kthread_parkme+0x5d/0x5d
> [<ffffffff813b880c>] ? ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> [<ffffffff8105eac4>] ? __kthread_parkme+0x5d/0x5d
>
>
> So it's not, at least in my case, due to the filesystem approaching full.
>
> I've seen this behaviour over many kernel versions; the above is with 3.12.5.
>
> Charles
> --
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> Charles Cazabon
> GPL'ed software available at:               http://pyropus.ca/software/
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]

  Powered by Linux