Re: deadlock on vmap_area_lock

[David Rientjes <rientjes@google.com>]

On Wed, 1 May 2013, Shawn Bohrer wrote:

> Correct it doesn't and I can't prove the find command is not making
> progress, however these finds normally complete in under 15 min and
> we've let the stuck ones run for days.  Additionally if this was just
> contention I'd expect to see multiple threads/CPUs contending and I
> only have a single CPU pegged running find at 99%. I should clarify
> that the perf snippet above was for the entire system.  Profiling just
> the find command shows:
> 
>     82.56%     find  [kernel.kallsyms]  [k] _raw_spin_lock

Couple of options to figure out what spinlock this is: use lockstat (see 
Documentation/lockstat.txt), which will also require a kernel rebuild, 
some human intervention to collect the stats, and the accompanying 
performance degradation, or you could try collecting
/proc/$(pidof find)/stack at regular intervals and figure out which 
spinlock it is.

> > Depending on your 
> > definition of "occassionally", would it be possible to run with 
> > CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING and CONFIG_LOCKDEP to see if it uncovers any real 
> > deadlock potential?
> 
> Yeah, I can probably enable these on a few machines and hope I get
> lucky.  These machines are used for real work so I'll have to gauge
> what how significant the performance impact is to determine how many
> machines I can sacrifice to the cause.
> 

You'll probably only need to enable it on one machine, if a deadlock 
possibility exists here then lockdep will find it even without hitting it, 
it simply has to exercise the path that leads to it.  It does have a 
performance degradation for that one machine, though.

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>