Difference between revisions of "INFO: task blocked for more than 120 seconds."

From Helpful
Jump to: navigation, search
m
m
Line 6: Line 6:
  
  
'''This message is not an error''', but it's telling you that the named process has not been scheduled on the CPU-time ''at all'' for 120 seconds (default).
+
'''This message is not an error''', it's telling you that the named process has not been scheduled on the CPU-time ''at all'' for 120 seconds (default).  
 
+
The cause is usually resource starvation (and specifically disk, i.e. the process was in [[uninterruptable sleep]] due to iowait for this long).
+
  
 +
But that's an eternity, and the reason for it being in [[uninterruptable sleep]] is usually
 +
typically resource starvation, and often disk.
  
 
Which means you usually don't want to silence that message,  
 
Which means you usually don't want to silence that message,  
 
because you want to find out when and why this happened, and probably avoid it in the future.  
 
because you want to find out when and why this happened, and probably avoid it in the future.  
  
The stack trace can help diagnose what it was doing. {{comment|(which is not so informative of the ''reason'' - it's common that the real IO load issue comes from another process)}}
+
The stack trace can help diagnose what it was doing. {{comment|(which is not so informative of the ''reason'' -
 +
the named program is often the victim of another one misbehaving, though it is sometimes the culprit)}}
  
  
Line 24: Line 25:
  
 
: specific bugs (in kernel code, systemd) have caused this as a side effect
 
: specific bugs (in kernel code, systemd) have caused this as a side effect
 
The named program is often the victim of that happening, though it is sometimes the culprit.
 
 
  
  

Revision as of 20:35, 8 February 2021

Under heavy IO load on servers you may see something like:

INFO: task nfsd:2252 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
"echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.

...probably followed by a call trace that mentions your filesystem, and probably io_schedule and sync_buffer.


This message is not an error, it's telling you that the named process has not been scheduled on the CPU-time at all for 120 seconds (default).

But that's an eternity, and the reason for it being in uninterruptable sleep is usually typically resource starvation, and often disk.

Which means you usually don't want to silence that message, because you want to find out when and why this happened, and probably avoid it in the future.

The stack trace can help diagnose what it was doing. (which is not so informative of the reason - the named program is often the victim of another one misbehaving, though it is sometimes the culprit)


Often enough for reasons like

because the system is trashing due to memory allocation issues
the underlying IO system is very slow for some reason
I've seen mentions of this happening in VMs that share disks
specific bugs (in kernel code, systemd) have caused this as a side effect


(The code behind this message sits in hung_task.c and was added somewhere around 2.6.30. This is a kernel thread that detects tasks that stays in the D state for a while (which typically meaning it is waiting for IO))




Notes:

  • if it happens constantly your IO system is slower than your IO use
  • most likely to happen to a process that was ioniced into the idle class. Which means it's working as intended, becauseidle-class is meant as an extreme politeness thing. It just indicates something else is doing a bunch of IO right now (for at least 120 seconds)
e.g. updatedb (may be victim if it were ioniced, cause if not)
  • if it happens only nightly, look at your cron jobs
  • a trashing system can cause this, and then it's purely a side effect of one program using too much RAM
  • being blocked by a desktop-class drive with bad sectors (because they retry for a long while)


  • NFS seems to be a common culprit, probably because it's good at filling the writeback cache, something which implies blocking while writeback happens - which is likely to block various things related to the same filesystem. (verify)
  • if it happens on a fileserver, you may want to consider spreading to more fileservers, or using a parallel filesystem


if your load is fairly sequential, you may get some relief from using the noop io scheduler (instead of cfq) though note that that disables ionice)
if your load is relatively random, upping the queue depth may help