* [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request
@ 2019-09-26 6:29 ZhangXiaoxu
2019-10-05 1:51 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: ZhangXiaoxu @ 2019-09-26 6:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: trond.myklebust, anna.schumaker, linux-nfs; +Cc: zhangxiaoxu5
When xfstests testing, there are some WARNING as below:
WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6235 at fs/nfs/inode.c:122 nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
Modules linked in:
CPU: 0 PID: 6235 Comm: umount.nfs
Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO)
pc : nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
lr : nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
sp : fffffc000f68fc00
x29: fffffc000f68fc00 x28: fffffe00c53155c0
x27: fffffe00c5315000 x26: fffffc0009a63748
x25: fffffc000f68fd18 x24: fffffc000bfaaf40
x23: fffffc000936d3c0 x22: fffffe00c4ff5e20
x21: fffffc000bfaaf40 x20: fffffe00c4ff5d10
x19: fffffc000c056000 x18: 000000000000003c
x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
x15: 0000000000000040 x14: 0000000000000228
x13: fffffc000c3a2000 x12: 0000000000000045
x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000
x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000
x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : fffffc00084b027c
x5 : fffffc0009a64000 x4 : fffffe00c0e77400
x3 : fffffc000c0563a8 x2 : fffffffffffffffb
x1 : 000000000000764e x0 : 0000000000000001
Call trace:
nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
evict+0x108/0x380
dispose_list+0x70/0xa0
evict_inodes+0x194/0x210
generic_shutdown_super+0xb0/0x220
nfs_kill_super+0x40/0x88
deactivate_locked_super+0xb4/0x120
deactivate_super+0x144/0x160
cleanup_mnt+0x98/0x148
__cleanup_mnt+0x38/0x50
task_work_run+0x114/0x160
do_notify_resume+0x2f8/0x308
work_pending+0x8/0x14
The nrequest should be increased/decreased only if PG_INODE_REF flag
was setted.
But in the nfs_inode_remove_request function, it maybe decrease when
no PG_INODE_REF flag, this maybe lead nrequests count error.
Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: ZhangXiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
---
fs/nfs/write.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
index 85ca495..52cab65 100644
--- a/fs/nfs/write.c
+++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
@@ -786,7 +786,6 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct nfs_page *req)
struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
struct nfs_page *head;
- atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
if (nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit(req, PG_REMOVE)) {
head = req->wb_head;
@@ -799,8 +798,10 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct nfs_page *req)
spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
}
- if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags))
+ if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags)) {
nfs_release_request(req);
+ atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
+ }
}
static void
--
2.7.4
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request
2019-09-26 6:29 [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request ZhangXiaoxu
@ 2019-10-05 1:51 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-10-05 14:07 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: zhangxiaoxu (A) @ 2019-10-05 1:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: trond.myklebust, anna.schumaker, linux-nfs
ping.
On 2019/9/26 14:29, ZhangXiaoxu wrote:
> When xfstests testing, there are some WARNING as below:
>
> WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6235 at fs/nfs/inode.c:122 nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> Modules linked in:
> CPU: 0 PID: 6235 Comm: umount.nfs
> Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO)
> pc : nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> lr : nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
> sp : fffffc000f68fc00
> x29: fffffc000f68fc00 x28: fffffe00c53155c0
> x27: fffffe00c5315000 x26: fffffc0009a63748
> x25: fffffc000f68fd18 x24: fffffc000bfaaf40
> x23: fffffc000936d3c0 x22: fffffe00c4ff5e20
> x21: fffffc000bfaaf40 x20: fffffe00c4ff5d10
> x19: fffffc000c056000 x18: 000000000000003c
> x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
> x15: 0000000000000040 x14: 0000000000000228
> x13: fffffc000c3a2000 x12: 0000000000000045
> x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000
> x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000
> x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : fffffc00084b027c
> x5 : fffffc0009a64000 x4 : fffffe00c0e77400
> x3 : fffffc000c0563a8 x2 : fffffffffffffffb
> x1 : 000000000000764e x0 : 0000000000000001
> Call trace:
> nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
> evict+0x108/0x380
> dispose_list+0x70/0xa0
> evict_inodes+0x194/0x210
> generic_shutdown_super+0xb0/0x220
> nfs_kill_super+0x40/0x88
> deactivate_locked_super+0xb4/0x120
> deactivate_super+0x144/0x160
> cleanup_mnt+0x98/0x148
> __cleanup_mnt+0x38/0x50
> task_work_run+0x114/0x160
> do_notify_resume+0x2f8/0x308
> work_pending+0x8/0x14
>
> The nrequest should be increased/decreased only if PG_INODE_REF flag
> was setted.
>
> But in the nfs_inode_remove_request function, it maybe decrease when
> no PG_INODE_REF flag, this maybe lead nrequests count error.
>
> Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> Signed-off-by: ZhangXiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
> ---
> fs/nfs/write.c | 5 +++--
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
> index 85ca495..52cab65 100644
> --- a/fs/nfs/write.c
> +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
> @@ -786,7 +786,6 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct nfs_page *req)
> struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
> struct nfs_page *head;
>
> - atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
> if (nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit(req, PG_REMOVE)) {
> head = req->wb_head;
>
> @@ -799,8 +798,10 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct nfs_page *req)
> spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
> }
>
> - if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags))
> + if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags)) {
> nfs_release_request(req);
> + atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
> + }
> }
>
> static void
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request
2019-10-05 1:51 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
@ 2019-10-05 14:07 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-10-05 14:35 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2019-10-05 14:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-nfs, zhangxiaoxu5, anna.schumaker
On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 09:51 +0800, zhangxiaoxu (A) wrote:
> ping.
>
> On 2019/9/26 14:29, ZhangXiaoxu wrote:
> > When xfstests testing, there are some WARNING as below:
> >
> > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6235 at fs/nfs/inode.c:122
> > nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> > Modules linked in:
> > CPU: 0 PID: 6235 Comm: umount.nfs
> > Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO)
> > pc : nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> > lr : nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
> > sp : fffffc000f68fc00
> > x29: fffffc000f68fc00 x28: fffffe00c53155c0
> > x27: fffffe00c5315000 x26: fffffc0009a63748
> > x25: fffffc000f68fd18 x24: fffffc000bfaaf40
> > x23: fffffc000936d3c0 x22: fffffe00c4ff5e20
> > x21: fffffc000bfaaf40 x20: fffffe00c4ff5d10
> > x19: fffffc000c056000 x18: 000000000000003c
> > x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
> > x15: 0000000000000040 x14: 0000000000000228
> > x13: fffffc000c3a2000 x12: 0000000000000045
> > x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000
> > x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000
> > x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : fffffc00084b027c
> > x5 : fffffc0009a64000 x4 : fffffe00c0e77400
> > x3 : fffffc000c0563a8 x2 : fffffffffffffffb
> > x1 : 000000000000764e x0 : 0000000000000001
> > Call trace:
> > nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> > nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
> > evict+0x108/0x380
> > dispose_list+0x70/0xa0
> > evict_inodes+0x194/0x210
> > generic_shutdown_super+0xb0/0x220
> > nfs_kill_super+0x40/0x88
> > deactivate_locked_super+0xb4/0x120
> > deactivate_super+0x144/0x160
> > cleanup_mnt+0x98/0x148
> > __cleanup_mnt+0x38/0x50
> > task_work_run+0x114/0x160
> > do_notify_resume+0x2f8/0x308
> > work_pending+0x8/0x14
> >
> > The nrequest should be increased/decreased only if PG_INODE_REF
> > flag
> > was setted.
> >
> > But in the nfs_inode_remove_request function, it maybe decrease
> > when
> > no PG_INODE_REF flag, this maybe lead nrequests count error.
> >
> > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> > Signed-off-by: ZhangXiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
> > ---
> > fs/nfs/write.c | 5 +++--
> > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > index 85ca495..52cab65 100644
> > --- a/fs/nfs/write.c
> > +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > @@ -786,7 +786,6 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct
> > nfs_page *req)
> > struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
> > struct nfs_page *head;
> >
> > - atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
> > if (nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit(req, PG_REMOVE)) {
> > head = req->wb_head;
> >
> > @@ -799,8 +798,10 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct
> > nfs_page *req)
> > spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
> > }
> >
> > - if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags))
> > + if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags)) {
> > nfs_release_request(req);
> > + atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > static void
> >
Hmm... What about nfs_page_group_init()? That also bumps nfsi-
>nrequests.
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request
2019-10-05 14:07 ` Trond Myklebust
@ 2019-10-05 14:35 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-10-08 2:00 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2019-10-05 14:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-nfs, zhangxiaoxu5, anna.schumaker
On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 14:07 +0000, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Sat, 2019-10-05 at 09:51 +0800, zhangxiaoxu (A) wrote:
> > ping.
> >
> > On 2019/9/26 14:29, ZhangXiaoxu wrote:
> > > When xfstests testing, there are some WARNING as below:
> > >
> > > WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 6235 at fs/nfs/inode.c:122
> > > nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> > > Modules linked in:
> > > CPU: 0 PID: 6235 Comm: umount.nfs
> > > Hardware name: linux,dummy-virt (DT)
> > > pstate: 60000005 (nZCv daif -PAN -UAO)
> > > pc : nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> > > lr : nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
> > > sp : fffffc000f68fc00
> > > x29: fffffc000f68fc00 x28: fffffe00c53155c0
> > > x27: fffffe00c5315000 x26: fffffc0009a63748
> > > x25: fffffc000f68fd18 x24: fffffc000bfaaf40
> > > x23: fffffc000936d3c0 x22: fffffe00c4ff5e20
> > > x21: fffffc000bfaaf40 x20: fffffe00c4ff5d10
> > > x19: fffffc000c056000 x18: 000000000000003c
> > > x17: 0000000000000000 x16: 0000000000000000
> > > x15: 0000000000000040 x14: 0000000000000228
> > > x13: fffffc000c3a2000 x12: 0000000000000045
> > > x11: 0000000000000000 x10: 0000000000000000
> > > x9 : 0000000000000000 x8 : 0000000000000000
> > > x7 : 0000000000000000 x6 : fffffc00084b027c
> > > x5 : fffffc0009a64000 x4 : fffffe00c0e77400
> > > x3 : fffffc000c0563a8 x2 : fffffffffffffffb
> > > x1 : 000000000000764e x0 : 0000000000000001
> > > Call trace:
> > > nfs_clear_inode+0x9c/0xd8
> > > nfs_evict_inode+0x60/0x78
> > > evict+0x108/0x380
> > > dispose_list+0x70/0xa0
> > > evict_inodes+0x194/0x210
> > > generic_shutdown_super+0xb0/0x220
> > > nfs_kill_super+0x40/0x88
> > > deactivate_locked_super+0xb4/0x120
> > > deactivate_super+0x144/0x160
> > > cleanup_mnt+0x98/0x148
> > > __cleanup_mnt+0x38/0x50
> > > task_work_run+0x114/0x160
> > > do_notify_resume+0x2f8/0x308
> > > work_pending+0x8/0x14
> > >
> > > The nrequest should be increased/decreased only if PG_INODE_REF
> > > flag
> > > was setted.
> > >
> > > But in the nfs_inode_remove_request function, it maybe decrease
> > > when
> > > no PG_INODE_REF flag, this maybe lead nrequests count error.
> > >
> > > Reported-by: Hulk Robot <hulkci@huawei.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: ZhangXiaoxu <zhangxiaoxu5@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/nfs/write.c | 5 +++--
> > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/nfs/write.c b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > > index 85ca495..52cab65 100644
> > > --- a/fs/nfs/write.c
> > > +++ b/fs/nfs/write.c
> > > @@ -786,7 +786,6 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct
> > > nfs_page *req)
> > > struct nfs_inode *nfsi = NFS_I(inode);
> > > struct nfs_page *head;
> > >
> > > - atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
> > > if (nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit(req, PG_REMOVE)) {
> > > head = req->wb_head;
> > >
> > > @@ -799,8 +798,10 @@ static void nfs_inode_remove_request(struct
> > > nfs_page *req)
> > > spin_unlock(&mapping->private_lock);
> > > }
> > >
> > > - if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags))
> > > + if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags)) {
> > > nfs_release_request(req);
> > > + atomic_long_dec(&nfsi->nrequests);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > >
> > > static void
> > >
>
> Hmm... What about nfs_page_group_init()? That also bumps nfsi-
> > nrequests.
Ah... Never mind, that's just copying the PG_INODE_REF flag to the new
subrequest.
However nfs_lock_and_join_requests() looks like it does need to change
to something like the following:
/* Postpone destruction of this request */
- if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_REMOVE, &head->wb_flags)) {
- set_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &head->wb_flags);
+ if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_REMOVE, &head->wb_flags) &&
+ !test_and_set_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &head->wb_flags)) {
kref_get(&head->wb_kref);
atomic_long_inc(&NFS_I(inode)->nrequests);
}
Do you agree?
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request
2019-10-05 14:35 ` Trond Myklebust
@ 2019-10-08 2:00 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-10-08 12:31 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: zhangxiaoxu (A) @ 2019-10-08 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Trond Myklebust, linux-nfs, anna.schumaker
Thanks for your review.
I think PG_REMOVE and PG_INODE_REF can't be both setted except in
'nfs_inode_remove_request' function.
nfs_inode_remove_request
// maybe set PG_REMOVE here.
nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit(req, PG_REMOVE)
nfs_page_group_lock(req);
nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit_locked
WARN_ON_ONCE(test_and_set_bit(bit, &req->wb_flags));
nfs_page_group_unlock(req);
// But also clear the PG_INODE_REF flag.
test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags)
'nfs_lock_and_join_requests' also need the PG_HEADLOCK flag:
nfs_lock_and_join_requests
nfs_page_group_lock(head);
test_and_clear_bit(PG_REMOVE, &head->wb_flags)
nfs_page_group_unlock(head);
在 2019/10/5 22:35, Trond Myklebust 写道:
> However nfs_lock_and_join_requests() looks like it does need to change
> to something like the following:
>
> /* Postpone destruction of this request */
> - if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_REMOVE, &head->wb_flags)) {
> - set_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &head->wb_flags);
> + if (test_and_clear_bit(PG_REMOVE, &head->wb_flags) &&
> + !test_and_set_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &head->wb_flags)) {
> kref_get(&head->wb_kref);
> atomic_long_inc(&NFS_I(inode)->nrequests);
> }
>
>
> Do you agree?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread* Re: [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request
2019-10-08 2:00 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
@ 2019-10-08 12:31 ` Trond Myklebust
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Trond Myklebust @ 2019-10-08 12:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: linux-nfs, zhangxiaoxu5, anna.schumaker
On Tue, 2019-10-08 at 10:00 +0800, zhangxiaoxu (A) wrote:
> Thanks for your review.
>
> I think PG_REMOVE and PG_INODE_REF can't be both setted except in
> 'nfs_inode_remove_request' function.
>
> nfs_inode_remove_request
> // maybe set PG_REMOVE here.
> nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit(req, PG_REMOVE)
> nfs_page_group_lock(req);
> nfs_page_group_sync_on_bit_locked
> WARN_ON_ONCE(test_and_set_bit(bit, &req-
> >wb_flags));
> nfs_page_group_unlock(req);
> // But also clear the PG_INODE_REF flag.
> test_and_clear_bit(PG_INODE_REF, &req->wb_flags)
>
> 'nfs_lock_and_join_requests' also need the PG_HEADLOCK flag:
>
> nfs_lock_and_join_requests
> nfs_page_group_lock(head);
> test_and_clear_bit(PG_REMOVE, &head->wb_flags)
> nfs_page_group_unlock(head);
Fair enough, and the race between nfs_inode_remove_request() and
nfs_lock_and_join_requests() with the setting of PG_REMOVE and the
clearing on PG_INODE_REF is prevented by the presence of the PG_LOCK.
OK. I agree with that argument. Thanks for the explanation!
Cheers
Trond
--
Trond Myklebust
Linux NFS client maintainer, Hammerspace
trond.myklebust@hammerspace.com
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-08 12:32 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2019-09-26 6:29 [PATCH] nfs: Fix nfsi->nrequests count error on nfs_inode_remove_request ZhangXiaoxu
2019-10-05 1:51 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-10-05 14:07 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-10-05 14:35 ` Trond Myklebust
2019-10-08 2:00 ` zhangxiaoxu (A)
2019-10-08 12:31 ` Trond Myklebust
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).