public inbox for [email protected]
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Pavel Begunkov <[email protected]>
To: Xan Charbonnet <[email protected]>,
	Salvatore Bonaccorso <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected], Jens Axboe <[email protected]>,
	Bernhard Schmidt <[email protected]>,
	[email protected], [email protected]
Subject: Re: Bug#1093243: Upgrade to 6.1.123 kernel causes mariadb hangs
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2025 18:40:51 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <[email protected]> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <[email protected]>

On 1/24/25 16:30, Xan Charbonnet wrote:
> On 1/24/25 04:33, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> Thanks for narrowing it down. Xan, can you try this change please?
>> Waiters can miss wake ups without it, seems to match the description.
>>
>> diff --git a/io_uring/io_uring.c b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> index 9b58ba4616d40..e5a8ee944ef59 100644
>> --- a/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> +++ b/io_uring/io_uring.c
>> @@ -592,8 +592,10 @@ static inline void __io_cq_unlock_post_flush(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>        io_commit_cqring(ctx);
>>        spin_unlock(&ctx->completion_lock);
>>        io_commit_cqring_flush(ctx);
>> -    if (!(ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN))
>> +    if (!(ctx->flags & IORING_SETUP_DEFER_TASKRUN)) {
>> +        smp_mb();
>>            __io_cqring_wake(ctx);
>> +    }
>>    }
>>    void io_cq_unlock_post(struct io_ring_ctx *ctx)
>>
> 
> 
> Thanks Pavel!  Early results look very good for this change.  I'm now running 6.1.120 with your added smp_mb() call.  The backup process which had been quickly triggering the issue has been running longer than it ever did when it would ultimately fail.  So that's great!
> 
> One sour note: overnight, replication hung on this machine, which is another failure that started happening with the jump from 6.1.119 to 6.1.123.  The machine was running 6.1.124 with the __io_cq_unlock_post_flush function removed completely.  That's the kernel we had celebrated yesterday for running the backup process successfully.
> 
> So, we might have two separate issues to deal with, unfortunately.

Possible, but it could also be a side effect of reverting the patch.
As usual, in most cases patches are ported either because they're
fixing sth or other fixes depend on it, and it's not yet apparent
to me what happened with this one.

> This morning, I found that replication had hung and was behind by some 35,000 seconds.  I attached gdb and then detached it, which got things moving again (which goes the extra mile to prove that this is a very closely related issue).  Then it hung up again at about 25,000 seconds behind.  At that point I rebooted into the new kernel, the 6.1.120 kernel with the added smp_mb() call.  The lag is now all the way down to 5,000 seconds without hanging again.
> 
> It looks like there are 5 io_uring-related patches in 6.1.122 and another 1 in 6.1.123.  My guess is the replication is hitting a problem with one of those.
> 
> Unfortunately, a replication hang is much harder for me to reproduce than the issue with the backup procedure, which always failed within 15 minutes.  It certainly looks to me like the patched 6.1.120 does not have the hang (but it's hard to be 100% certain).  Perhaps the next step is to apply the extra smp_mb() call to 6.1.123 and see if I can get replication to hang.

Sounds like it works as expected with mb(), at least for now. I agree,
it makes sense to continue testing with the patch, and I'll send it to
stable in the meantime. Thanks for testing!

-- 
Pavel Begunkov


  reply	other threads:[~2025-01-24 18:40 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <173706089225.4380.9492796104667651797.reportbug@backup22.biblionix.com>
     [not found] ` <[email protected]>
     [not found]   ` <[email protected]>
     [not found]     ` <[email protected]>
2025-01-23 20:05       ` Bug#1093243: Upgrade to 6.1.123 kernel causes mariadb hangs Salvatore Bonaccorso
2025-01-23 20:26         ` Jens Axboe
     [not found] ` <[email protected]>
2025-01-23 20:49   ` Salvatore Bonaccorso
2025-01-23 23:20     ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-24  2:10       ` Xan Charbonnet
2025-01-24  5:24       ` Salvatore Bonaccorso
2025-01-24 10:33         ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-24 16:30           ` Xan Charbonnet
2025-01-24 18:40             ` Pavel Begunkov [this message]
2025-01-24 20:33               ` Salvatore Bonaccorso
2025-01-24 20:51                 ` Jens Axboe
2025-01-26 22:48                   ` Xan Charbonnet
2025-01-27 16:38                     ` Xan Charbonnet
2025-01-27 17:21                       ` Pavel Begunkov
2025-01-27 16:49                     ` Pavel Begunkov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    [email protected] \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox