Re: PS hanging in 2.4.1 - HAPPENING NOW!!!

From: Shawn Starr (Shawn.Starr@Home.net)
Date: Sat Feb 03 2001 - 23:12:40 EST

  • Next message: Linus Torvalds: "2.4.2-pre1"

    Ok, ive added change. Im starting the applications that were running at the time of the hang. XMMS, gnomeicu, a few consoles etc.

    Let's see what happens.

    Shawn.

    Shawn Starr wrote:

    > Adding now.. I just applied 2.4.1-ac2 and now i'll add this code snipet to the source. It might take 4 days or so for the bug to show itself. At least, unless it triggers eariler (?)
    >
    > Restarting...
    >
    > Shawn.
    >
    > Linus Torvalds wrote:
    >
    > > On Sat, 3 Feb 2001, Shawn.Starr@Home.net wrote:
    > > >
    > > >Feb 3 17:57:08 coredump kernel: gnomeicu S 0000CD17 0 9338 1 (NOTLB) 9340 9332
    > > >Feb 3 17:57:08 coredump kernel: Call Trace: [search_by_key+203/3232] [search_for_position_by_key+170/916] [make_cpu_key+57/64] [_get_block_create_0+136/1072] [_get_block_create_0+162/1072] [remove_wait_queue+40/48] [__wait_on_buffer+128/140]
    > > >Feb 3 17:57:08 coredump kernel: [<f0000000>] [reiserfs_get_block+158/3408] [search_for_position_by_key+170/916] [search_for_position_by_key+570/916] [make_cpu_key+57/64] [kmem_cache_alloc+75/116] [get_unused_buffer_head+52/144] [create_buffers+96/444]
    > > >Feb 3 17:57:08 coredump kernel: [block_read_full_page+246/552] [add_to_page_cache_unique+202/212] [reiserfs_readpage+15/20] [reiserfs_get_block+0/3408] [read_cluster_nonblocking+258/324] [filemap_nopage+332/1032] [do_no_page+77/192] [handle_mm_fault+232/340]
    > > >Feb 3 17:57:08 coredump kernel: [do_page_fault+312/1020] [do_page_fault+0/1020] [start_request+388/508] [intlat_local_irq_disable+16/20] [ide_do_request+685/752] [schedule+639/964] [remove_wait_queue+40/48] [error_code+52/64]
    > > >Feb 3 17:57:09 coredump kernel: [__generic_copy_from_user+52/60] [opost_block+67/384] [handle_mm_fault+232/340] [add_wait_queue+59/68] [write_chan+365/516] [tty_write+341/448] [write_chan+0/516] [sys_write+143/196]
    > > >Feb 3 17:57:09 coredump kernel: [system_call+62/80]
    > >
    > > Ok, the above seems to be the culprit here.
    > >
    > > Note how the thing is in TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE (S) sleep somewhere in the
    > > reiserfs code..
    > >
    > > Debugging this is slightly harder than I'd like, because the "call trace"
    > > is really not a trace, but actually just a dump of the stack of everything
    > > that looks like a kernel address. And a lot of it is crap - stuff left
    > > over by previous calls that hasn't gotten overwritten and is visible
    > > because some function has a large stack footprint (lots of local variables
    > > that end up not being very used and let things show through).
    > >
    > > Anyway, what I _think_ is the cleaned-up stacktrace is
    > >
    > > [reiserfs_get_block+158/3408]
    > > [reiserfs_readpage+15/20]
    > > [read_cluster_nonblocking+258/324]
    > > [filemap_nopage+332/1032]
    > > [do_no_page+77/192]
    > > [handle_mm_fault+232/340]
    > > [do_page_fault+312/1020]
    > > [error_code+52/64]
    > > [__generic_copy_from_user+52/60]
    > > [opost_block+67/384]
    > > [handle_mm_fault+232/340]
    > > [add_wait_queue+59/68]
    > > [write_chan+365/516]
    > > [tty_write+341/448]
    > > [write_chan+0/516]
    > > [sys_write+143/196]
    > > [system_call+62/80]
    > >
    > > and what is interesting is that you got a page fault while you were
    > > copying stuff in to the tty layer. Which happens with TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
    > > sleep. Now, the page fault code never clears that, so we enter reiserfs
    > > still "sleeping", and reiserfs will do a
    > >
    > > if (need_resched(current))
    > > schedule();
    > >
    > > which won't do what reiserfs _wants_ it to do at all. Because if
    > > task->state is TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, the above will go to sleep, not just
    > > cause a nice reschedule. And we'll be sleeping with the task MM semaphore
    > > held - only to wake up if somebody were to signal us or something.
    > >
    > > If you can re-create this hang, could you please try to add this single
    > > line to the top of "handle_mm_fault()" in mm/memory.c (after the variable
    > > declarations, of course):
    > >
    > > current->state = TASK_RUNNING;
    > >
    > > which just means that if we get a page fault while we're half asleep, it
    > > will be safe to do a schedule() without explicitly setting the process
    > > running again.
    > >
    > > Linus
    > >
    > > -
    > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
    >
    > -
    > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 03 2001 - 23:13:53 EST