Hi Dan, I see one thread that is doing a re-entrant call to btr_cur_pessimistic_delete() on a secondary index tree when purging the history of a committed transaction (such as a DELETE or an UPDATE of an indexed column). It matches the hang https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-29835 that was actually introduced in MySQL 5.7 already and has been present in MariaDB Server starting with 10.2.2. The thread right below that is executing btr_estimate_n_rows_in_range(), which was improved in https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-21136 in MariaDB 10.6.9. After that change, we started to see much more InnoDB hangs. For the 10.6.12 release, I tried to fix MDEV-29835. Because I ran out of time, I fixed only part of it, in https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-30400. I have the feeling that this partial fix made the hangs in the remaining cases much more likely. Yasufumi Kinoshita introduced in MySQL 5.7 a latch mode that sits between exclusive (X) and shared (S), called SX by him, and called U (Update) by me in https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-24142. At most one X or SX lock can be granted on an object at a time. While X locks conflict with S locks, the SX lock allows any number of S locks to be acquired concurrently. The problem is lock order inversion because Yasufumi’s implementation violates his own design constraints https://dev.mysql.com/worklog/task/?id=6326 High Level Architecture. I helped formulate those rules back then, but I was not otherwise involved with the design, implementation or review of the change. Unfortunately, one section heading "(2) When holding index->lock SX-latch:" is missing. The purge thread that is doing the re-entrant call to btr_cur_pessimistic_delete() is holding an index tree SX-latch and some leaf page latches. As part of the page merge, it has to access some non-leaf pages on which it did not acquire latches upfront. According to the design rules, this is the wrong order of acquiring latches. The btr_estimate_n_rows_in_range() thread is holding an index S-latch and following the correct order for that case. Without having the output of "thread apply all backtrace full", I cannot say for sure that this is a case of MDEV-29835, but I think that it is extremely likely. Based on other cases that I have analyzed, I expect that the btr_cur_pessimistic_delete() is holding a page latch that btr_estimate_n_rows_in_range() is waiting for, and it is waiting for a higher-level page latch that btr_estimate_n_rows_in_range() is holding. The simple fix to this would be to never use the index SX-lock mode, and always escalate to exclusive locking. We actually tried that years back in https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-14637 but it would have caused a significant performance regression. The upcoming quarterly releases (within a month or so) includes a fix of MDEV-29835 that only escalates to exclusively locking the index tree when it is really needed. In debug builds, we have assertions that would fire if index page latches are being acquired in the wrong order while not holding an exclusive index latch. This fix was tested both for correctness (lack of debug assertions) and performance. This is not the only bug that is related to SX-locks. https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-29883 is another example. Some users are successfully using a development snapshot that includes the fix of MDEV-29835. In https://jira.mariadb.org/browse/MDEV-30481 you can find one example. With best regards, -- Marko Mäkelä, Lead Developer InnoDB MariaDB plc