From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY, SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB80FC2BC61 for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A10F82082B for ; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:56:45 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="JNlswZ00" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A10F82082B Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728112AbeJaCvL (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:51:11 -0400 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:37768 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728012AbeJaCvL (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Oct 2018 22:51:11 -0400 Received: from tleilax.poochiereds.net (cpe-71-70-156-158.nc.res.rr.com [71.70.156.158]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4F04E2080A; Tue, 30 Oct 2018 17:56:41 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1540922202; bh=g7qrjPi6VP1mB6Vz9hI2pOUMMH6/klRdl4U1RN0+M28=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JNlswZ00Jsj5GbTZaL1k4xbK3+/H6HBSVN3tPRd/e1Zw0qy5k3BEF8hYMaWJbz7wz 4ZlALDcjgkFv7XT8jQRKinVmu9ol4Y/jl82dGGmljK8B5Jdoaoq9Il0805spqO50/j m/AHz+omwdsNgBx3iGvtmU6GeBB0r8RVVOLNZYEM= Message-ID: <08c014e9c37e5530b170e5f3f994a475fa586d3d.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9 v3] locks: avoid thundering-herd wake-ups From: Jeff Layton To: NeilBrown , Alexander Viro Cc: "J. Bruce Fields" , Martin Wilck , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Frank Filz , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2018 13:56:40 -0400 In-Reply-To: References: <154033435272.29542.13985568983074440924.stgit@noble> <41db4227fdc5deb7703c6425c2f36589b355a7ca.camel@kernel.org> <87sh0p3490.fsf@notabene.neil.brown.name> <0617e06e8d66170254a10cd922750c92d6ff04ff.camel@kernel.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.28.5 (3.28.5-1.fc28) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2018-10-30 at 08:04 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 08:38 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote: > > On Mon, 2018-10-29 at 12:56 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > On Fri, Oct 26 2018, Jeff Layton wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 2018-10-24 at 09:43 +1100, NeilBrown wrote: > > > > > This took longer that I had wanted, due to various reasons - sorry. > > > > > And I'm now posting it in a merge window, which is not ideal. I don't > > > > > expect it to be included in this merge window and I won't be at all > > > > > impatient for review, but I didn't want to delay it further. > > > > > > > > > > Testing found some problems, particularly the need to use > > > > > locks_copy_lock in NFS. And there was a small thinko in there that > > > > > effectively removed all the speed gains :-( > > > > > > > > > > But this version: > > > > > - shows excellent scalability with lots of threads on lots of CPUs > > > > > contending on a single file > > > > > - avoids the problems that Bruce found > > > > > - seems to work. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > NeilBrown > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > NeilBrown (9): > > > > > fs/locks: rename some lists and pointers. > > > > > fs/locks: split out __locks_wake_up_blocks(). > > > > > NFS: use locks_copy_lock() to copy locks. > > > > > fs/locks: allow a lock request to block other requests. > > > > > fs/locks: always delete_block after waiting. > > > > > fs/locks: change all *_conflict() functions to return bool. > > > > > fs/locks: create a tree of dependent requests. > > > > > locks: merge posix_unblock_lock() and locks_delete_block() > > > > > VFS: locks: remove unnecessary white space. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fs/cifs/file.c | 4 - > > > > > fs/lockd/svclock.c | 2 > > > > > fs/locks.c | 231 ++++++++++++++++++++++----------------- > > > > > fs/nfs/nfs4proc.c | 6 + > > > > > fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 6 + > > > > > include/linux/fs.h | 11 +- > > > > > include/trace/events/filelock.h | 16 +-- > > > > > 7 files changed, 153 insertions(+), 123 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Signature > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I built a kernel with these patches and ran the cthon04 lock tests and > > > > got this on lock test 1 after a long hang (the test passed though): > > > > > > I've been looking deeper into this, and I cannot see how this can > > > happen. > > > > > > This is an unlock request, happening when a file is closed. > > > locks_delete_block() will only be called from locks_lock_inode_wait() > > > after posix_lock_inode() (or possible flock_lock_inode()) returns > > > FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED. > > > > > > But these only return FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED when fl_type != F_UNLCK. > > > (or possibly if FL_ACCESS and FL_SLEEP are both set - that would be > > > weird). > > > > > > So this shouldn't happen - an unlock request should never result in > > > locks_delete_block() being called. > > > But if it can, I'll need to change do_flock() in gfs2/file.c to use a > > > properly initialized 'struct file_lock', rather than a manifest > > > constant. Maybe I should do that anyway. > > > > > > Any ideas? I'll try running connectathon myself later and see if I can > > > reproduce it. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > NeilBrown > > > Sorry, I missed your comment about gfs2. Yes, we'll need to do something similar there. Looks like ocfs2_do_flock likely has the same problem too. I think we can just call locks_init_lock on those and then initialize the fields being set afterward. Given that that needs to be fixed, I'll hold off on merging this into linux-next just yet. Would you mind respinning this series with those fixed up? Feel free to squash my one-liner patch in with another too. > > > > [ 1694.787367] BUG: unable to handle kernel NULL pointer dereference at 000000000000002c > > > > [ 1694.789546] PGD 118ff0067 P4D 118ff0067 PUD 135915067 PMD 0 > > > > [ 1694.790772] Oops: 0000 [#1] SMP NOPTI > > > > [ 1694.791749] CPU: 7 PID: 1514 Comm: tlocklfs Not tainted 4.19.0+ #56 > > > > [ 1694.792876] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS ?-20180531_142017-buildhw-08.phx2.fedoraproject.org-1.fc28 04/01/2014 > > > > [ 1694.795179] RIP: 0010:__locks_delete_block+0x14/0x90 > > > > [ 1694.796203] Code: 01 a1 e9 9f 4f d8 ff 0f 1f 44 00 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 8b 05 29 9d 58 01 55 53 48 89 fb 85 c0 75 5a <48> 8b 43 20 48 85 c0 74 20 48 8b 53 18 48 89 10 48 85 d2 74 04 48 > > > > [ 1694.799277] RSP: 0018:ffff9d21c1f63cb8 EFLAGS: 00010202 > > > > [ 1694.800374] RAX: 0000000000000001 RBX: 000000000000000c RCX: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaad > > > > [ 1694.801682] RDX: 0000000000000001 RSI: ffffffff9f7b0c38 RDI: 0000000000000246 > > > > [ 1694.802996] RBP: 000000000000000c R08: 0000000000000000 R09: 0000000000000001 > > > > [ 1694.804317] R10: 0000000000000001 R11: ffffffffa0bdc188 R12: ffff9d21c1f63dd8 > > > > [ 1694.805633] R13: ffff9d21c1f63e00 R14: ffffffff9f3241a8 R15: ffff8d0b5aef72e0 > > > > [ 1694.806941] FS: 00007efc8699c740(0000) GS:ffff8d0b7ba00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000 > > > > [ 1694.808380] CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033 > > > > [ 1694.809550] CR2: 000000000000002c CR3: 000000011e0d8000 CR4: 00000000000006e0 > > > > [ 1694.810888] Call Trace: > > > > [ 1694.811692] __locks_wake_up_blocks+0x2d/0x80 > > > > [ 1694.812713] locks_delete_block+0x1d/0x40 > > > > [ 1694.813691] locks_lock_inode_wait+0x9c/0x1c0 > > > > [ 1694.814731] nfs4_proc_lock+0x120/0x440 [nfsv4] > > > > [ 1694.815786] ? nfs_put_lock_context+0x25/0x80 [nfs] > > > > [ 1694.816866] ? do_unlk+0x98/0xe0 [nfs] > > > > [ 1694.817818] locks_remove_posix+0xba/0x1d0 > > > > [ 1694.818811] ? _cond_resched+0x15/0x30 > > > > [ 1694.819768] ? wait_on_commit+0x38/0xb0 [nfs] > > > > [ 1694.820787] ? process_echoes+0x60/0x60 > > > > [ 1694.821752] ? __nfs_commit_inode+0xc2/0x1c0 [nfs] > > > > [ 1694.822819] filp_close+0x56/0x70 > > > > [ 1694.823712] __x64_sys_close+0x1e/0x50 > > > > [ 1694.824661] do_syscall_64+0x60/0x1f0 > > > > [ 1694.825599] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x49/0xbe > > > > [ 1694.826731] RIP: 0033:0x7efc8616c0a4 > > > > [ 1694.827673] Code: eb 89 e8 af f6 01 00 66 2e 0f 1f 84 00 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 8b 05 aa e7 2c 00 48 63 ff 85 c0 75 13 b8 03 00 00 00 0f 05 <48> 3d 00 f0 ff ff 77 44 f3 c3 66 90 48 83 ec 18 48 89 7c 24 08 e8 > > > > [ 1694.830929] RSP: 002b:00007ffc70beb7b8 EFLAGS: 00000246 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000003 > > > > [ 1694.832371] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007efc8616c0a4 > > > > [ 1694.833784] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 00007efc864378a0 RDI: 0000000000000009 > > > > [ 1694.835183] RBP: 00007ffc70beb7d0 R08: 00007efc864378a0 R09: 00007efc8699c740 > > > > [ 1694.836560] R10: 00000000000006b4 R11: 0000000000000246 R12: 0000000000401000 > > > > [ 1694.837941] R13: 00007ffc70beb990 R14: 0000000000000000 R15: 0000000000000000 > > > > [ 1694.839322] Modules linked in: rpcsec_gss_krb5 nfsv4 dns_resolver nfs fscache nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl lockd grace ip6t_rpfilter ip6t_REJECT nf_reject_ipv6 xt_conntrack ip_set nfnetlink ebtable_nat ebtable_broute bridge stp llc ip6table_nat nf_nat_ipv6 ip6table_mangle ip6table_raw ip6table_security iptable_nat nf_nat_ipv4 nf_nat nf_conntrack nf_defrag_ipv6 nf_defrag_ipv4 iptable_mangle iptable_raw iptable_security ebtable_filter ebtables ip6table_filter ip6_tables sunrpc joydev virtio_balloon i2c_piix4 pcspkr edac_mce_amd xfs libcrc32c serio_raw virtio_blk qxl drm_kms_helper virtio_net ttm net_failover virtio_console failover drm ata_generic pata_acpi floppy qemu_fw_cfg > > > > [ 1694.849736] CR2: 000000000000002c > > > > [ 1694.850813] ---[ end trace da2f469c62deb564 ]--- > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Jeff Layton > > > > Yes. It crashed here: > > > > (gdb) list *(__locks_delete_block+0x14) > > 0xffffffff81391374 is in __locks_delete_block > > (./include/linux/list.h:693). > > 688 n->pprev = LIST_POISON2; > > 689 } > > 690 > > 691 static inline void hlist_del_init(struct hlist_node *n) > > 692 { > > 693 if (!hlist_unhashed(n)) { > > 694 __hlist_del(n); > > 695 INIT_HLIST_NODE(n); > > 696 } > > 697 } > > > > ...and that should be the address of fl->fl_link. > > > > I think the issue is probably in locks_remove_posix. It creates a lock > > request on the stack, and doesn't seem to initialize fl_link. That used > > to be ok, but patch #5 in the series changes that. > > > > The following patch seems to fix the problem in a quick test. I'll plan > > to run some more tests later. It may be a day or two before I can get to > > it though. > > > > -----------------------8<--------------------------- > > > > [PATCH] locks: initialize list heads in locks_remove_posix lock request > > > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton > > --- > > fs/locks.c | 1 + > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c > > index 6b9da320d9a0..60019e146839 100644 > > --- a/fs/locks.c > > +++ b/fs/locks.c > > @@ -2535,6 +2535,7 @@ void locks_remove_posix(struct file *filp, fl_owner_t owner) > > lock.fl_file = filp; > > lock.fl_ops = NULL; > > lock.fl_lmops = NULL; > > + locks_init_lock_heads(&lock); > > > > error = vfs_lock_file(filp, F_SETLK, &lock, NULL); > > > > I ran a bunch of tests on top of your series + this patch and it seemed > to do fine. I'm guessing maybe you just got "lucky" and your kernel > happened to end up with the fl_link value set in such a way that > hlist_unhashed returned true there? > > In any case, this seems to fix the issue I was seeing. The only question > I have is whether this will be more expensive than doing something more > clever like checking for FL_SLEEP in locks_remove_block. > > I've gone ahead and pushed the set to my locks-next branch to start > getting more testing. If all goes well, I'll plan to send Linus a PR for > v4.21 (or v5.1). > > Thanks again for doing this! -- Jeff Layton