lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Apr]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [Bugme-new] [Bug 15709] New: swapper page allocation failure
I've applied the patch against the kernel which I got
from "git clone ...." resulted in a kernel 2.6.34-rc5.

The stack trace after mounting NFS is here:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=26166
/var/log/messages after soft lockup:
https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=26167

I hope that there is any usefull information in there.

Thanks!
Robert

On 04/27/10 01:28, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-04-27 at 00:18 +0200, Robert Wimmer wrote:
>
>>> Sure. In addition to what you did above, please do
>>>
>>> mount -t debugfs none /sys/kernel/debug
>>>
>>> and then cat the contents of the pseudofile at
>>>
>>> /sys/kernel/debug/tracing/stack_trace
>>>
>>> Please do this more or less immediately after you've finished mounting
>>> the NFSv4 client.
>>>
>>>
>> I've uploaded the stack trace. It was generated
>> directly after mounting. Here are the stacks:
>>
>> After mounting:
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=26153
>> After the soft lockup:
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=26154
>> The dmesg output of the soft lockup:
>> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/attachment.cgi?id=26155
>>
>>
>>> Does your server have the 'crossmnt' or 'nohide' flags set, or does it
>>> use the 'refer' export option anywhere? If so, then we might have to
>>> test further, since those may trigger the NFSv4 submount feature.
>>>
>>>
>> The server has the following settings:
>> rw,nohide,insecure,async,no_subtree_check,no_root_squash
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Robert
>>
>>
>>
> That second trace is more than 5.5K deep, more than half of which is
> socket overhead :-(((.
>
> The process stack does not appear to have overflowed, however that trace
> doesn't include any IRQ stack overhead.
>
> OK... So what happens if we get rid of half of that trace by forcing
> asynchronous tasks such as this to run entirely in rpciod instead of
> first trying to run in the process context?
>
> See the attachment...
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-04-28 00:59    [W:0.059 / U:0.904 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site