Bug#594923: Noflushd causes flush- processes to eat all CPU
tags 594923 + patch
quit
Hi Xavier,
Xavier Roche wrote:
> I did the following test:
> * noflushd 2.8-1 on four SATA disks on a fresh squeeze install
> * kernels 2.6.32.57 (without Debian patches) and 3.2.9
>
> With the same noflushd, 2.6.32.57 causes the kernel to eat all CPU (load
> at 15, system very unresponsive), but the 3.2.9 release is just doing
> fine apparently.
Thanks. Does the attached patch help?
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
Date: Fri, 21 May 2010 20:00:35 +0200
Subject: writeback: fixups for !dirty_writeback_centisecs
Commit 69b62d01 fixed up most of the places where we would enter
busy schedule() spins when disabling the periodic background
writeback. This fixes up the sb timer so that it doesn't get
hammered on with the delay disabled, and ensures that it gets
rearmed if needed when /proc/sys/vm/dirty_writeback_centisecs
gets modified.
bdi_forker_task() also needs to check for !dirty_writeback_centisecs
and use schedule() appropriately, fix that up too.
With the patched kernel (linux-2.6_2.6.32.orig.tar.gz +
writeback-fixups-for-dirty_writeback_centisecs.patch --
linux-2.6_2.6.32-41.diff not applied), I do not have anymore the flush
problem.
However, the ksoftirqd process shows up time to time and eats some CPU:
4 root 20 0 0 0 0 R 28.2 0.0 0:06.55 ksoftirqd/0
This is not an issue as the load average stays very low (0,10) ; but the
problem disappears totally when using 3.2.9.
[ Note: if a disk is going idle because of a previous "/sbin/hdparm
-SXXX /dev/sdXXX", the 100% CPU issue comes back (but can be solved by
awakening the disk), which is not the case in 3.2.9, strangely. ]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F52777F.7040100@httrack.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F52777F.7040100@httrack.com
03-04-2012, 05:49 AM
Jonathan Nieder
Bug#594923: Noflushd causes flush- processes to eat all CPU
tags 594923 - moreinfo
quit
Xavier Roche wrote:
> Le 03/03/2012 14:55, Jonathan Nieder a écrit :
>> Thanks. Does the attached patch help?
>
> Yes, mostly.
I've passed this information upstream. Hopefully it can be fixed in a
2.6.32.y release soon so everyone benefits.
[...]
> (the test machine was randomly freezing because of
> unrelated ACPI issue)
[...]
> [ Note: if a disk is going idle because of a previous "/sbin/hdparm
> -SXXX /dev/sdXXX", the 100% CPU issue comes back (but can be solved by
> awakening the disk), which is not the case in 3.2.9, strangely. ]
If you are interested in pursuing a fix for either of these, please
feel free to file it as a separate bug. Results from testing a few
versions halfway between from <http://snapshot.debian.org/> could be
helpful in narrowing the search for the fix.
Many thanks,
Jonathan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120304064938.GE14725@burratino">http://lists.debian.org/20120304064938.GE14725@burratino