[Lustre-discuss] kernel: BUG: soft lockup - CPU stuck for 10s! with lustre 1.8.4

[Fan Yong]

  On 9/20/10 5:36 PM, Temple Jason wrote:
> It appears that turning off statahead does indeed avoid the soft lockup bug.  But this seems to me to be a workaround, and not a solution.
>
> Is statahead not useful for performance gains?  I am not comfortable making my user's jobs waste more cpu time because I have to implement a workaround instead of a fix.
>
> Is there one in the works?  Nasf - does your patch solve the bug, or does it just disable statahead by default?
Statahead is used for optimizing the performance of traversing large 
directory in Lustre. My patch is not to disable statahead, but try to 
fix the soft lockup issues, and also contains some other fixes to 
improve the system stability and performance a bit. I think it is worth 
for you to try such patch.


Cheers,
Nasf
> Thanks,
>
> Jason
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org [mailto:lustre-discuss-bounces at lists.lustre.org] On Behalf Of paciucci at gmail.com
> Sent: sabato, 18. settembre 2010 08:13
> To: rread at whamcloud.com; peter.x.jones at oracle.com
> Cc: lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> Subject: Re: [Lustre-discuss] kernel: BUG: soft lockup - CPU stuck for 10s! with lustre 1.8.4
>
> No i have disabled the statahead cache to avoid the problem -----Messaggio originale-----
> Da: "Robert Read"<rread at whamcloud.com>
> Data: Sat Sep 18 04:42:18 GMT 2010
> A: "Peter Jones"<peter.x.jones at oracle.com>
> CC: "lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org"<lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org>
> Oggetto: Re: [Lustre-discuss] kernel: BUG: soft lockup - CPU stuck for 10s! with lustre 1.8.4
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> Perhaps the link got mangled by your mail client? (It does have some seemingly unusual characters for an URL.)  My interpretation of Gabriele's reply is that the problem occurred even with statahead disabled, so in that case this patch might be worth trying.
>
> robert
>
>
>
>
> On Sep 17, 2010, at 10:18 , Peter Jones wrote:
>
>> The URL does not work for me, but if it is a statahead issue then
>> surely turning statahead off would be a simple workaround to avoid
>> having to apply a patch.
>>
>> Fan Yong wrote:
>>>   On 9/14/10 8:55 PM, Gabriele Paciucci wrote:
>>>
>>>> I have the same problem, I put the statahead_max to 0 !!!
>>>>
>>> In fact, I have made a patch for statahead related issues (including
>>> this one) against lustre-1.8, which is in inspection.
>>> http://review.whamcloud.com/#change,2
>>> If possible, you can try such patch.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> --
>>> Nasf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lustre-discuss mailing list
>> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
>> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss
> _______________________________________________
> Lustre-discuss mailing list
> Lustre-discuss at lists.lustre.org
> http://lists.lustre.org/mailman/listinfo/lustre-discuss