From: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: avoid sb_start_intwrite during eviction Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:40:08 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4b264607-4d60-7370-eca7-8816a3f8d29f@kernel.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <Yh2lpb3c5X9aPJ+r@google.com> On 2022/3/1 12:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > 1. waiting for f2fs_evict_inode > [ 5560.043945] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0xac/0xf0 > [ 5560.045540] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30 > [ 5560.047036] find_inode_fast+0x6d/0xc0 > [ 5560.048473] iget_locked+0x79/0x230 > [ 5560.049933] f2fs_iget+0x27/0x1200 [f2fs] > [ 5560.051496] f2fs_lookup+0x18c/0x3e0 [f2fs] > [ 5560.053069] __lookup_slow+0x84/0x150 > [ 5560.054503] walk_component+0x141/0x1b0 > [ 5560.055938] link_path_walk.part.0+0x23b/0x360 > [ 5560.057541] ? end_bio_bh_io_sync+0x37/0x50 > [ 5560.059086] path_parentat+0x3c/0x90 > [ 5560.060492] filename_parentat+0xd7/0x1e0 > [ 5560.062002] ? blk_mq_free_request+0x127/0x150 > [ 5560.063576] do_renameat2+0xc1/0x5b0 > --> sb_start_write(m->mnt_sb); -> __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE); > > [ 5560.064999] ? __check_object_size+0x13f/0x150 > [ 5560.066559] ? strncpy_from_user+0x44/0x150 > [ 5560.068038] ? getname_flags.part.0+0x4c/0x1b0 > [ 5560.069617] __x64_sys_renameat2+0x51/0x60 > > 2. waiting for sb_start_intwrite -> __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); It's still not clear that why __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_FS) will be blocked, as SB_FREEZE_FS and SB_FREEZE_WRITE points to different locks. Thread A Thread B Thread C - rename - sb_start_write - __sb_start_write(SB_FREEZE_WRITE) ... - f2fs_lookup ... - __wait_on_freeing_inode - drop_slab - prune_icache_sb - inode_lru_isolate :inode->i_state |= I_FREEING - Is there any flow that it has already held SB_FREEZE_FS and try to lock SB_FREEZE_WRITE? - f2fs_evict_inode - __sb_start_write(SB_FREEZE_FS) Thanks, > > [ 5560.152447] percpu_rwsem_wait+0xaf/0x160 > [ 5560.154000] ? percpu_down_write+0xd0/0xd0 > [ 5560.155498] __percpu_down_read+0x4e/0x60 > [ 5560.157000] f2fs_evict_inode+0x5a3/0x610 [f2fs] > [ 5560.158648] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30 > [ 5560.160341] evict+0xd2/0x180 > [ 5560.161728] prune_icache_sb+0x81/0xb0 > --> inode_lru_isolate() -> inode->i_state |= I_FREEING; > > [ 5560.163179] super_cache_scan+0x169/0x1f0 > [ 5560.164675] do_shrink_slab+0x145/0x2b0 > [ 5560.166121] shrink_slab+0x186/0x2d0 > [ 5560.167481] drop_slab_node+0x4a/0x90 > [ 5560.168876] drop_slab+0x3e/0x80 > [ 5560.170178] drop_caches_sysctl_handler+0x75/0x90 > [ 5560.171761] proc_sys_call_handler+0x149/0x280 > [ 5560.173328] proc_sys_write+0x13/0x20 > [ 5560.174667] new_sync_write+0x117/0x1b0 > [ 5560.176120] vfs_write+0x1d5/0x270 > [ 5560.177409] ksys_write+0x67/0xe0 > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> > --- > Note, I found this call stack. > > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > index ab8e0c06c78c..882db4bd917b 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > @@ -778,7 +778,6 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode) > f2fs_remove_ino_entry(sbi, inode->i_ino, UPDATE_INO); > f2fs_remove_ino_entry(sbi, inode->i_ino, FLUSH_INO); > > - sb_start_intwrite(inode->i_sb); > set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NO_ALLOC); > i_size_write(inode, 0); > retry: > @@ -809,7 +808,6 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode) > if (dquot_initialize_needed(inode)) > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_QUOTA_NEED_REPAIR); > } > - sb_end_intwrite(inode->i_sb); > no_delete: > dquot_drop(inode); >
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Chao Yu <chao@kernel.org> To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] f2fs: avoid sb_start_intwrite during eviction Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2022 10:40:08 +0800 [thread overview] Message-ID: <4b264607-4d60-7370-eca7-8816a3f8d29f@kernel.org> (raw) In-Reply-To: <Yh2lpb3c5X9aPJ+r@google.com> On 2022/3/1 12:48, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > 1. waiting for f2fs_evict_inode > [ 5560.043945] __wait_on_freeing_inode+0xac/0xf0 > [ 5560.045540] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30 > [ 5560.047036] find_inode_fast+0x6d/0xc0 > [ 5560.048473] iget_locked+0x79/0x230 > [ 5560.049933] f2fs_iget+0x27/0x1200 [f2fs] > [ 5560.051496] f2fs_lookup+0x18c/0x3e0 [f2fs] > [ 5560.053069] __lookup_slow+0x84/0x150 > [ 5560.054503] walk_component+0x141/0x1b0 > [ 5560.055938] link_path_walk.part.0+0x23b/0x360 > [ 5560.057541] ? end_bio_bh_io_sync+0x37/0x50 > [ 5560.059086] path_parentat+0x3c/0x90 > [ 5560.060492] filename_parentat+0xd7/0x1e0 > [ 5560.062002] ? blk_mq_free_request+0x127/0x150 > [ 5560.063576] do_renameat2+0xc1/0x5b0 > --> sb_start_write(m->mnt_sb); -> __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_WRITE); > > [ 5560.064999] ? __check_object_size+0x13f/0x150 > [ 5560.066559] ? strncpy_from_user+0x44/0x150 > [ 5560.068038] ? getname_flags.part.0+0x4c/0x1b0 > [ 5560.069617] __x64_sys_renameat2+0x51/0x60 > > 2. waiting for sb_start_intwrite -> __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_FS); It's still not clear that why __sb_start_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_FS) will be blocked, as SB_FREEZE_FS and SB_FREEZE_WRITE points to different locks. Thread A Thread B Thread C - rename - sb_start_write - __sb_start_write(SB_FREEZE_WRITE) ... - f2fs_lookup ... - __wait_on_freeing_inode - drop_slab - prune_icache_sb - inode_lru_isolate :inode->i_state |= I_FREEING - Is there any flow that it has already held SB_FREEZE_FS and try to lock SB_FREEZE_WRITE? - f2fs_evict_inode - __sb_start_write(SB_FREEZE_FS) Thanks, > > [ 5560.152447] percpu_rwsem_wait+0xaf/0x160 > [ 5560.154000] ? percpu_down_write+0xd0/0xd0 > [ 5560.155498] __percpu_down_read+0x4e/0x60 > [ 5560.157000] f2fs_evict_inode+0x5a3/0x610 [f2fs] > [ 5560.158648] ? var_wake_function+0x30/0x30 > [ 5560.160341] evict+0xd2/0x180 > [ 5560.161728] prune_icache_sb+0x81/0xb0 > --> inode_lru_isolate() -> inode->i_state |= I_FREEING; > > [ 5560.163179] super_cache_scan+0x169/0x1f0 > [ 5560.164675] do_shrink_slab+0x145/0x2b0 > [ 5560.166121] shrink_slab+0x186/0x2d0 > [ 5560.167481] drop_slab_node+0x4a/0x90 > [ 5560.168876] drop_slab+0x3e/0x80 > [ 5560.170178] drop_caches_sysctl_handler+0x75/0x90 > [ 5560.171761] proc_sys_call_handler+0x149/0x280 > [ 5560.173328] proc_sys_write+0x13/0x20 > [ 5560.174667] new_sync_write+0x117/0x1b0 > [ 5560.176120] vfs_write+0x1d5/0x270 > [ 5560.177409] ksys_write+0x67/0xe0 > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> > --- > Note, I found this call stack. > > fs/f2fs/inode.c | 2 -- > 1 file changed, 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/inode.c b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > index ab8e0c06c78c..882db4bd917b 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/inode.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/inode.c > @@ -778,7 +778,6 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode) > f2fs_remove_ino_entry(sbi, inode->i_ino, UPDATE_INO); > f2fs_remove_ino_entry(sbi, inode->i_ino, FLUSH_INO); > > - sb_start_intwrite(inode->i_sb); > set_inode_flag(inode, FI_NO_ALLOC); > i_size_write(inode, 0); > retry: > @@ -809,7 +808,6 @@ void f2fs_evict_inode(struct inode *inode) > if (dquot_initialize_needed(inode)) > set_sbi_flag(sbi, SBI_QUOTA_NEED_REPAIR); > } > - sb_end_intwrite(inode->i_sb); > no_delete: > dquot_drop(inode); > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-02 2:40 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-02-15 22:00 [PATCH] f2fs: avoid sb_start_intwrite during eviction Jaegeuk Kim 2022-02-15 22:00 ` [f2fs-dev] " Jaegeuk Kim 2022-02-25 3:04 ` Chao Yu 2022-02-25 3:04 ` Chao Yu 2022-02-25 19:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-02-25 19:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-01 4:48 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] " Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-01 4:48 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 2:40 ` Chao Yu [this message] 2022-03-02 2:40 ` Chao Yu 2022-03-02 5:34 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 5:34 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 5:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 5:38 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 5:45 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 5:45 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 7:01 ` Chao Yu 2022-03-02 7:01 ` Chao Yu 2022-03-02 19:46 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2022-03-02 19:46 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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 \ --in-reply-to=4b264607-4d60-7370-eca7-8816a3f8d29f@kernel.org \ --to=chao@kernel.org \ --cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \ --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \ --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \ /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: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.