From: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
Cc: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Masayoshi MIZUMA <m.mizuma@jp.fujitsu.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
"viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk" <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk>,
Nick Piggin <npiggin@suse.de>, Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] skip I_CLEAR state inodes
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 22:10:21 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090603141021.GB5738@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20090602113736.GB15010@duck.suse.cz>
On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 07:37:36PM +0800, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 02-06-09 16:55:23, Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2009 at 05:38:35AM +0800, Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > > Wu Fengguang wrote:
> > > > Add I_CLEAR tests to drop_pagecache_sb(), generic_sync_sb_inodes() and
> > > > add_dquot_ref().
> > > >
> > > > clear_inode() will switch inode state from I_FREEING to I_CLEAR,
> > > > and do so _outside_ of inode_lock. So any I_FREEING testing is
> > > > incomplete without the testing of I_CLEAR.
> > > >
> > > > Masayoshi MIZUMA first discovered the bug in drop_pagecache_sb() and
> > > > Jan Kara reminds fixing the other two cases. Thanks!
> > >
> > > Is there a reason it's not done for __sync_single_inode as well?
> >
> > It missed the glance because it don't have an obvious '|' in the line ;)
> >
> > > Jeff Layton asked the question and I'm following it up :)
> > >
> > > __sync_single_inode currently only tests I_FREEING, but I think we are
> > > safe because __sync_single_inode sets I_SYNC, and clear_inode waits for
> > > I_SYNC to be cleared before it changes I_STATE.
> >
> > But I_SYNC is removed just before the I_FREEING test, so we still have
> > a small race window?
> >
> > > On the other hand, testing I_CLEAR here probably would be safe anyway,
> > > and it'd be bonus points for consistency?
> >
> > So let's add the I_CLEAR test?
> >
> > > Same basic question for generic_sync_sb_inodes, which has a
> > > BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_FREEING), seems like this could check I_CLWAR
> > > as well?
> >
> > Yes, we can add I_CLEAR here to catch more error condition.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Fengguang
> >
> > ---
> > skip I_CLEAR state inodes in writeback routines
> >
> > The I_FREEING test in __sync_single_inode() is racy because
> > clear_inode() can set i_state to I_CLEAR between the clear of I_SYNC
> > and the test of I_FREEING.
> >
> > Also extend the coverage of BUG_ON(I_FREEING) to I_CLEAR.
> >
> > Reported-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@redhat.com>
> > Reported-by: Eric Sandeen <sandeen@sandeen.net>
> > Signed-off-by: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@intel.com>
> > ---
> > fs/fs-writeback.c | 4 ++--
> > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > --- linux.orig/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > +++ linux/fs/fs-writeback.c
> > @@ -316,7 +316,7 @@ __sync_single_inode(struct inode *inode,
> > spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> > WARN_ON(inode->i_state & I_NEW);
> > inode->i_state &= ~I_SYNC;
> > - if (!(inode->i_state & I_FREEING)) {
> > + if (!(inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR))) {
> > if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY) &&
> > mapping_tagged(mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY)) {
> Is the whole if needed? I had an impression that everyone calling
> __sync_single_inode() should better take care it does not race with inode
> freeing... So WARN_ON would be more appropriate IMHO.
>
> > /*
> > @@ -518,7 +518,7 @@ void generic_sync_sb_inodes(struct super
> > if (current_is_pdflush() && !writeback_acquire(bdi))
> > break;
> >
> > - BUG_ON(inode->i_state & I_FREEING);
> > + BUG_ON(inode->i_state & (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR));
> > __iget(inode);
> > pages_skipped = wbc->pages_skipped;
> > __writeback_single_inode(inode, wbc);
> Looking at this code, it looks a bit suspicious. What prevents this s_io
> list scan to race with inode freeing? In particular generic_forget_inode()
Good catch.
> can drop inode_lock to write the inode and in the mean time
> generic_sync_sb_inodes() can come, get a reference to the inode and start
> it's writeback... Subsequent iput() would then call generic_forget_inode()
Another possibility:
generic_forget_inode
inode->i_state |= I_WILL_FREE;
spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
generic_sync_sb_inodes()
spin_lock(&inode_lock);
__iget(inode);
__writeback_single_inode
// see non zero i_count
WARN_ON(inode->i_state & I_WILL_FREE);
I'm wondering why didn't we saw reports on the last WARN_ON()?
Did we missed something?
> on the inode again. So shouldn't we skip I_FREEING|I_CLEAR|I_WILL_FREE|I_NEW
> inodes in this scan like we do for later in the function for another scan?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-06-03 14:10 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-03-18 8:13 [PATCH][BUG] Lack of mutex_lock in drop_pagecache_sb() Masasyoshi MIZUMA
2009-03-23 10:38 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-24 7:06 ` Masayoshi MIZUMA
2009-03-24 7:44 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-24 12:05 ` Jan Kara
2009-03-24 12:11 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-03-24 12:40 ` [PATCH] skip I_CLEAR state inodes Wu Fengguang
2009-03-30 7:18 ` [PATCH][RESEND for 2.6.29-rc8-mm1] " Wu Fengguang
2009-03-31 23:43 ` Andrew Morton
2009-04-01 0:53 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-01 21:38 ` [PATCH] " Eric Sandeen
2009-06-02 8:55 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-02 10:27 ` Jeff Layton
2009-06-02 11:37 ` Jan Kara
2009-06-02 21:48 ` Eric Sandeen
2009-06-03 10:45 ` Jeff Layton
2009-06-03 13:32 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-03 14:00 ` Jan Kara
2009-06-03 14:10 ` Wu Fengguang [this message]
2009-06-03 14:16 ` Jan Kara
2009-06-03 14:47 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-06 3:07 ` [PATCH] writeback: skip new or to-be-freed inodes Wu Fengguang
2009-06-08 7:03 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-06-08 9:29 ` Wu Fengguang
2009-06-08 10:45 ` Christoph Hellwig
2009-06-09 7:24 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-06-09 7:03 ` Artem Bityutskiy
2009-06-08 17:07 ` Jan Kara
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=20090603141021.GB5738@localhost \
--to=fengguang.wu@intel.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=jlayton@redhat.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=m.mizuma@jp.fujitsu.com \
--cc=npiggin@suse.de \
--cc=sandeen@sandeen.net \
--cc=viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).