All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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 15:01:26 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d861bf6-c404-140d-b91a-60df3ddec304@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yh8EgciUTRAbWDNG@google.com>

On 2022/3/2 13:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It seems I missed another call, thaw_super(), got SB_FREEZE_FS and then being
>>> stuck to grab SB_FREEZE_WRITE.
>>
>> Ah, sorry. freeze_super().
> 
> Messed up. So, the lock order is SB_FREEZE_WRITE -> SB_FREEZE_FS in both cases.

Yeah, I noticed this, w/ such lock order, Thread C (freeze_super) will be blocked
on SB_FREEZE_WRITE, and then Thread B won't be block on SB_FREEZE_FS, right?

Thanks,

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

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 15:01:26 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <3d861bf6-c404-140d-b91a-60df3ddec304@kernel.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Yh8EgciUTRAbWDNG@google.com>

On 2022/3/2 13:45, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 03/01, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 03/02, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>> It seems I missed another call, thaw_super(), got SB_FREEZE_FS and then being
>>> stuck to grab SB_FREEZE_WRITE.
>>
>> Ah, sorry. freeze_super().
> 
> Messed up. So, the lock order is SB_FREEZE_WRITE -> SB_FREEZE_FS in both cases.

Yeah, I noticed this, w/ such lock order, Thread C (freeze_super) will be blocked
on SB_FREEZE_WRITE, and then Thread B won't be block on SB_FREEZE_FS, right?

Thanks,

> 
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

  reply	other threads:[~2022-03-02  7:01 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
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 [this message]
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=3d861bf6-c404-140d-b91a-60df3ddec304@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: link
Be 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.