[PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

Hello,

Al, Jan, could you comment? I mean the intent, the patches are
obviously not for inclusion yet.

We can remove everything from struct sb_writers except frozen
(which can become a boolean, it seems) and add the array of
percpu_rw_semaphore's instead.

__sb_start/end_write() can use percpu_down/up_read(), and
freeze/thaw_super() can use percpu_down/up_write().

Why:

	- Firstly, __sb_start_write() looks simply buggy. I does
	  __sb_end_write() if it sees ->frozen, but if it migrates
	  to another CPU before percpu_counter_dec() sb_wait_write()
	  can wrongly succeed if there is another task which holds
	  the same "semaphore": sb_wait_write() can miss the result
	  of the previous percpu_counter_inc() but see the result
	  of this percpu_counter_dec().

	- This code doesn't look simple. It would be better to rely
	  on the generic locking code.

	- __sb_start_write() will be a little bit faster, but this
	  is minor.

Todo:

	- __sb_start_write(wait => false) always fail.

	  Thivial, we already have percpu_down_read_trylock() just
	  this patch wasn't merged yet.

	- sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with
	  percpu_rw_semaphore's internals.

	  Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c.

	- Fix get_super_thawed(), it will spin if MS_RDONLY...

	  It is not clear to me what exactly should we do, but this
	  doesn't look hard. Perhaps it can just return if MS_RDONLY.

	- Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need
	  how to test.

Finally. freeze_super() calls synchronize_sched_expedited() 3 times in
a row. This is bad and just stupid. But if we change percpu_rw_semaphore
to use rcu_sync (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/11/211) we can avoid
this and do synchronize_sched() only once. Just we need some more simple
changes in percpu-rwsem.c, so that all sb_writers->rw_sem[] semaphores
could use the single sb_writers->rss.

In this case destroy_super() needs some modifications too,
percpu_free_rwsem() will be might_sleep(). But this looks simple too.

Oleg.

 fs/super.c         |  147 +++++++++++++++++++--------------------------------
 include/linux/fs.h |   14 +----
 2 files changed, 58 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)

[PATCH 1/4] change get_super_thawed() to use sb_start/end_write()

[Oleg Nesterov]

Preparation. get_super_thawed() can do sb_start/end_write() with
the same effect, we are going to kill sb_writers->wait_unfrozen.
---
 fs/super.c |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 928c20f..5ea0edd 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -621,8 +621,8 @@ struct super_block *get_super_thawed(struct block_device *bdev)
 		if (!s || s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN)
 			return s;
 		up_read(&s->s_umount);
-		wait_event(s->s_writers.wait_unfrozen,
-			   s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN);
+		sb_start_write(s);
+		sb_end_intwrite(s);
 		put_super(s);
 	}
 }
-- 
1.5.5.1

Re: [PATCH 1/4] change get_super_thawed() to use sb_start/end_write()

[Jan Kara]

On Mon 13-07-15 23:25:48, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Preparation. get_super_thawed() can do sb_start/end_write() with
> the same effect, we are going to kill sb_writers->wait_unfrozen.
> ---
>  fs/super.c |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
> index 928c20f..5ea0edd 100644
> --- a/fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/super.c
> @@ -621,8 +621,8 @@ struct super_block *get_super_thawed(struct block_device *bdev)
>  		if (!s || s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN)
>  			return s;
>  		up_read(&s->s_umount);
> -		wait_event(s->s_writers.wait_unfrozen,
> -			   s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN);
> +		sb_start_write(s);
> +		sb_end_intwrite(s);

This is definitely buggy - you need to start and end freeze protection at
the same level...

									Honza

>  		put_super(s);
>  	}
>  }
> -- 
> 1.5.5.1
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH 1/4] change get_super_thawed() to use sb_start/end_write()

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/14, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > @@ -621,8 +621,8 @@ struct super_block *get_super_thawed(struct block_device *bdev)
> >  		if (!s || s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN)
> >  			return s;
> >  		up_read(&s->s_umount);
> > -		wait_event(s->s_writers.wait_unfrozen,
> > -			   s->s_writers.frozen == SB_UNFROZEN);
> > +		sb_start_write(s);
> > +		sb_end_intwrite(s);
>
> This is definitely buggy - you need to start and end freeze protection at
> the same level...

Of course ;) copy-and-paste bug. Thanks!

Oleg.

[PATCH 2/4] introduce sb_unlock_frozen()

[Oleg Nesterov]

Preaparation. Add the trivial helper which does the wakeup.
---
 fs/super.c |   12 ++++++++----
 1 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 5ea0edd..c23bafc 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -1254,6 +1254,12 @@ static void sb_wait_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
 	} while (writers);
 }
 
+static void sb_unlock_frozen(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+	smp_wmb();
+	wake_up(&sb->s_writers.wait_unfrozen);
+}
+
 /**
  * freeze_super - lock the filesystem and force it into a consistent state
  * @sb: the super to lock
@@ -1340,8 +1346,7 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 			printk(KERN_ERR
 				"VFS:Filesystem freeze failed\n");
 			sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_UNFROZEN;
-			smp_wmb();
-			wake_up(&sb->s_writers.wait_unfrozen);
+			sb_unlock_frozen(sb);
 			deactivate_locked_super(sb);
 			return ret;
 		}
@@ -1387,8 +1392,7 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
 
 out:
 	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_UNFROZEN;
-	smp_wmb();
-	wake_up(&sb->s_writers.wait_unfrozen);
+	sb_unlock_frozen(sb);
 	deactivate_locked_super(sb);
 
 	return 0;
-- 
1.5.5.1

[PATCH 3/4] introduce sb_lockdep_release()

[Oleg Nesterov]

Move the "fool the lockdep" code from sb_wait_write() into the new
simple helper, sb_lockdep_release().

This makes sense in any case afaics, this way s_op->freeze_fs(sb) is
called with these write locks held as it seen by lockdep.
---
 fs/super.c |   16 +++++++++++-----
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index c23bafc..94303fc 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -1229,12 +1229,7 @@ static void sb_wait_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
 {
 	s64 writers;
 
-	/*
-	 * We just cycle-through lockdep here so that it does not complain
-	 * about returning with lock to userspace
-	 */
 	rwsem_acquire(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
-	rwsem_release(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 1, _THIS_IP_);
 
 	do {
 		DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
@@ -1254,6 +1249,16 @@ static void sb_wait_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
 	} while (writers);
 }
 
+/* Avoid the warning from lockdep_sys_exit() */
+static void sb_lockdep_release(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+	int level;
+
+	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level) {
+		rwsem_release(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 1, _THIS_IP_);
+	}
+}
+
 static void sb_unlock_frozen(struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	smp_wmb();
@@ -1356,6 +1361,7 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 	 * sees write activity when frozen is set to SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE.
 	 */
 	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
+	sb_lockdep_release(sb);
 	up_write(&sb->s_umount);
 	return 0;
 }
-- 
1.5.5.1

[PATCH 4/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

__sb_start/end_write() can use percpu_down/up_read().
---
 fs/super.c         |  135 +++++++++++++++++-----------------------------------
 include/linux/fs.h |   14 +----
 2 files changed, 47 insertions(+), 102 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/super.c b/fs/super.c
index 94303fc..6e336b8 100644
--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@ static void destroy_super(struct super_block *s)
 	list_lru_destroy(&s->s_dentry_lru);
 	list_lru_destroy(&s->s_inode_lru);
 	for (i = 0; i < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; i++)
-		percpu_counter_destroy(&s->s_writers.counter[i]);
+		percpu_free_rwsem(s->s_writers.rw_sem + i);
 	security_sb_free(s);
 	WARN_ON(!list_empty(&s->s_mounts));
 	kfree(s->s_subtype);
@@ -178,14 +178,10 @@ static struct super_block *alloc_super(struct file_system_type *type, int flags)
 		goto fail;
 
 	for (i = 0; i < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; i++) {
-		if (percpu_counter_init(&s->s_writers.counter[i], 0,
-					GFP_KERNEL) < 0)
-			goto fail;
-		lockdep_init_map(&s->s_writers.lock_map[i], sb_writers_name[i],
-				 &type->s_writers_key[i], 0);
+		__percpu_init_rwsem(&s->s_writers.rw_sem[i],
+					sb_writers_name[i],
+					&type->s_writers_key[i]);
 	}
-	init_waitqueue_head(&s->s_writers.wait);
-	init_waitqueue_head(&s->s_writers.wait_unfrozen);
 	s->s_bdi = &noop_backing_dev_info;
 	s->s_flags = flags;
 	INIT_HLIST_NODE(&s->s_instances);
@@ -1146,43 +1142,10 @@ out:
  */
 void __sb_end_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
 {
-	percpu_counter_dec(&sb->s_writers.counter[level-1]);
-	/*
-	 * Make sure s_writers are updated before we wake up waiters in
-	 * freeze_super().
-	 */
-	smp_mb();
-	if (waitqueue_active(&sb->s_writers.wait))
-		wake_up(&sb->s_writers.wait);
-	rwsem_release(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 1, _RET_IP_);
+	percpu_up_read(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level-1);
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__sb_end_write);
 
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
-/*
- * We want lockdep to tell us about possible deadlocks with freezing but
- * it's it bit tricky to properly instrument it. Getting a freeze protection
- * works as getting a read lock but there are subtle problems. XFS for example
- * gets freeze protection on internal level twice in some cases, which is OK
- * only because we already hold a freeze protection also on higher level. Due
- * to these cases we have to tell lockdep we are doing trylock when we
- * already hold a freeze protection for a higher freeze level.
- */
-static void acquire_freeze_lock(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool trylock,
-				unsigned long ip)
-{
-	int i;
-
-	if (!trylock) {
-		for (i = 0; i < level - 1; i++)
-			if (lock_is_held(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[i])) {
-				trylock = true;
-				break;
-			}
-	}
-	rwsem_acquire_read(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, trylock, ip);
-}
-#endif
 
 /*
  * This is an internal function, please use sb_start_{write,pagefault,intwrite}
@@ -1190,27 +1153,15 @@ static void acquire_freeze_lock(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool trylock,
  */
 int __sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool wait)
 {
-retry:
-	if (unlikely(sb->s_writers.frozen >= level)) {
-		if (!wait)
-			return 0;
-		wait_event(sb->s_writers.wait_unfrozen,
-			   sb->s_writers.frozen < level);
-	}
-
-#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
-	acquire_freeze_lock(sb, level, !wait, _RET_IP_);
-#endif
-	percpu_counter_inc(&sb->s_writers.counter[level-1]);
 	/*
-	 * Make sure counter is updated before we check for frozen.
-	 * freeze_super() first sets frozen and then checks the counter.
+	 * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+	 * !!!!!!!!! percpu_down_read_trylock() wasn't merged yet !!!!!!!!!!!!!
+	 * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 	 */
-	smp_mb();
-	if (unlikely(sb->s_writers.frozen >= level)) {
-		__sb_end_write(sb, level);
-		goto retry;
-	}
+	if (!wait)
+		return 0;
+
+	percpu_down_read(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level-1);
 	return 1;
 }
 EXPORT_SYMBOL(__sb_start_write);
@@ -1227,42 +1178,46 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__sb_start_write);
  */
 static void sb_wait_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
 {
-	s64 writers;
-
-	rwsem_acquire(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, 0, _THIS_IP_);
-
-	do {
-		DEFINE_WAIT(wait);
-
-		/*
-		 * We use a barrier in prepare_to_wait() to separate setting
-		 * of frozen and checking of the counter
-		 */
-		prepare_to_wait(&sb->s_writers.wait, &wait,
-				TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
-
-		writers = percpu_counter_sum(&sb->s_writers.counter[level-1]);
-		if (writers)
-			schedule();
-
-		finish_wait(&sb->s_writers.wait, &wait);
-	} while (writers);
+	percpu_down_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level-1);
 }
 
+/*
+ * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+ * !!!!!!!!!!! Move this code into kernel/locking/percpu-rwsem.c !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+ * !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
+ */
+#include "../kernel/locking/rwsem.h"
 /* Avoid the warning from lockdep_sys_exit() */
 static void sb_lockdep_release(struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	int level;
+	struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem;
+
+	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level) {
+		sem = sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level;
+		rwsem_clear_owner(&sem->rw_sem);
+		rwsem_release(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 1, _RET_IP_);
+	}
+}
+
+static void sb_lockdep_acquire(struct super_block *sb)
+{
+	int level;
+	struct percpu_rw_semaphore *sem;
 
 	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level) {
-		rwsem_release(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 1, _THIS_IP_);
+		sem = sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level;
+		rwsem_set_owner(&sem->rw_sem); /* unneeded */
+		rwsem_acquire(&sem->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 1, _RET_IP_);
 	}
 }
 
 static void sb_unlock_frozen(struct super_block *sb)
 {
-	smp_wmb();
-	wake_up(&sb->s_writers.wait_unfrozen);
+	int level;
+
+	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level)
+		percpu_up_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level);
 }
 
 /**
@@ -1323,8 +1278,6 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 
 	/* From now on, no new normal writers can start */
 	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_WRITE;
-	smp_wmb();
-
 	/* Release s_umount to preserve sb_start_write -> s_umount ordering */
 	up_write(&sb->s_umount);
 
@@ -1332,9 +1285,8 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 
 	/* Now we go and block page faults... */
 	down_write(&sb->s_umount);
-	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT;
-	smp_wmb();
 
+	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT;
 	sb_wait_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT);
 
 	/* All writers are done so after syncing there won't be dirty data */
@@ -1342,7 +1294,6 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 
 	/* Now wait for internal filesystem counter */
 	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_FS;
-	smp_wmb();
 	sb_wait_write(sb, SB_FREEZE_FS);
 
 	if (sb->s_op->freeze_fs) {
@@ -1350,8 +1301,8 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 		if (ret) {
 			printk(KERN_ERR
 				"VFS:Filesystem freeze failed\n");
-			sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_UNFROZEN;
 			sb_unlock_frozen(sb);
+			sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_UNFROZEN;
 			deactivate_locked_super(sb);
 			return ret;
 		}
@@ -1386,6 +1337,8 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
 	if (sb->s_flags & MS_RDONLY)
 		goto out;
 
+	sb_lockdep_acquire(sb);
+
 	if (sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs) {
 		error = sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs(sb);
 		if (error) {
@@ -1396,9 +1349,9 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
 		}
 	}
 
+	sb_unlock_frozen(sb);
 out:
 	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_UNFROZEN;
-	sb_unlock_frozen(sb);
 	deactivate_locked_super(sb);
 
 	return 0;
diff --git a/include/linux/fs.h b/include/linux/fs.h
index 35ec87e..314e2d0 100644
--- a/include/linux/fs.h
+++ b/include/linux/fs.h
@@ -1,7 +1,6 @@
 #ifndef _LINUX_FS_H
 #define _LINUX_FS_H
 
-
 #include <linux/linkage.h>
 #include <linux/wait.h>
 #include <linux/kdev_t.h>
@@ -30,6 +29,7 @@
 #include <linux/lockdep.h>
 #include <linux/percpu-rwsem.h>
 #include <linux/blk_types.h>
+#include <linux/percpu-rwsem.h>
 
 #include <asm/byteorder.h>
 #include <uapi/linux/fs.h>
@@ -1246,16 +1246,8 @@ enum {
 #define SB_FREEZE_LEVELS (SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE - 1)
 
 struct sb_writers {
-	/* Counters for counting writers at each level */
-	struct percpu_counter	counter[SB_FREEZE_LEVELS];
-	wait_queue_head_t	wait;		/* queue for waiting for
-						   writers / faults to finish */
-	int			frozen;		/* Is sb frozen? */
-	wait_queue_head_t	wait_unfrozen;	/* queue for waiting for
-						   sb to be thawed */
-#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_LOCK_ALLOC
-	struct lockdep_map	lock_map[SB_FREEZE_LEVELS];
-#endif
+	int				frozen;		/* Is sb frozen? */
+	struct percpu_rw_semaphore	rw_sem[SB_FREEZE_LEVELS];
 };
 
 struct super_block {
-- 
1.5.5.1

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Chinner]

[ Please cc linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org on filesystem
infrastructure changes! ]

On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:25:36PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Al, Jan, could you comment? I mean the intent, the patches are
> obviously not for inclusion yet.
> 
> We can remove everything from struct sb_writers except frozen
> (which can become a boolean, it seems) and add the array of
> percpu_rw_semaphore's instead.
> 
> __sb_start/end_write() can use percpu_down/up_read(), and
> freeze/thaw_super() can use percpu_down/up_write().
> 
> Why:
> 
> 	- Firstly, __sb_start_write() looks simply buggy. I does
> 	  __sb_end_write() if it sees ->frozen, but if it migrates
> 	  to another CPU before percpu_counter_dec() sb_wait_write()
> 	  can wrongly succeed if there is another task which holds
> 	  the same "semaphore": sb_wait_write() can miss the result
> 	  of the previous percpu_counter_inc() but see the result
> 	  of this percpu_counter_dec().
> 
> 	- This code doesn't look simple. It would be better to rely
> 	  on the generic locking code.
> 
> 	- __sb_start_write() will be a little bit faster, but this
> 	  is minor.
> 
> Todo:
> 
> 	- __sb_start_write(wait => false) always fail.
> 
> 	  Thivial, we already have percpu_down_read_trylock() just
> 	  this patch wasn't merged yet.
> 
> 	- sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with
> 	  percpu_rw_semaphore's internals.
> 
> 	  Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c.

	- try compiling XFS, watch it break on freeze lockdep
	  annotations

> 	- Fix get_super_thawed(), it will spin if MS_RDONLY...
> 
> 	  It is not clear to me what exactly should we do, but this
> 	  doesn't look hard. Perhaps it can just return if MS_RDONLY.
> 
> 	- Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need
> 	  how to test.

xfstests has many freeze related stress tests.  IIRC, generic/068 is
the test that historically causes the most problems for freeze
infrastructure changes. You'll also need to test at least ext4, XFS
and btrfs, because they all stress the freeze code differently.
Testing XFS, in particular, is a good idea because it has several
custom freeze tests that aren't run on any other filesystem type.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/14, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> [ Please cc linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org on filesystem
> infrastructure changes! ]

OK, will do.

> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:25:36PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 	- sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with
> > 	  percpu_rw_semaphore's internals.
> >
> > 	  Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c.
>
> 	- try compiling XFS, watch it break on freeze lockdep
> 	  annotations

Thanks a lot! I see. Still trivial, xfs can use the same helpers
rather the abuse lockdep directly.

> > 	- Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need
> > 	  how to test.
>
> xfstests has many freeze related stress tests.  IIRC, generic/068 is
> the test that historically causes the most problems for freeze
> infrastructure changes. You'll also need to test at least ext4, XFS
> and btrfs, because they all stress the freeze code differently.
> Testing XFS, in particular, is a good idea because it has several
> custom freeze tests that aren't run on any other filesystem type.

Thanks again.

Do you see something fundamentally wrong with this change?

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Chinner]

On Tue, Jul 14, 2015 at 12:42:37AM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/14, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > [ Please cc linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org on filesystem
> > infrastructure changes! ]
> 
> OK, will do.
> 
> > On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 11:25:36PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > 	- sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with
> > > 	  percpu_rw_semaphore's internals.
> > >
> > > 	  Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c.
> >
> > 	- try compiling XFS, watch it break on freeze lockdep
> > 	  annotations
> 
> Thanks a lot! I see. Still trivial, xfs can use the same helpers
> rather the abuse lockdep directly.
> 
> > > 	- Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need
> > > 	  how to test.
> >
> > xfstests has many freeze related stress tests.  IIRC, generic/068 is
> > the test that historically causes the most problems for freeze
> > infrastructure changes. You'll also need to test at least ext4, XFS
> > and btrfs, because they all stress the freeze code differently.
> > Testing XFS, in particular, is a good idea because it has several
> > custom freeze tests that aren't run on any other filesystem type.
> 
> Thanks again.
> 
> Do you see something fundamentally wrong with this change?

I haven't looked particularly closely at the implementation, just
enough to get an idea of the semantics of the new infrasructure (I
didn't know that per-cpu rwsems existed!). The freeze code is
essentially a multi-level read-optimised read/write barrier and
AFAICT the per-cpu rw-sem has those semantics. From that perspective
I don't see any fundamental problems, but there may be details that
I've missed....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Jan Kara]

  Hello,

On Mon 13-07-15 23:25:36, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> Al, Jan, could you comment? I mean the intent, the patches are
> obviously not for inclusion yet.

Thanks for the patches! Hum, what do people have with freeze protection
these days? Noone cared about it for years and sudddently two patch sets
within a month :) Anyway, have you seen the patch set from Dave Hansen?

It is here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/24/682
He modifies the freezing primitives in a different way. AFAICS the
resulting performance of the fast path should be about the same. So unless
I'm missing something and there is a significant performance advantage to
Dave's patches I'm all for using a generic primitive you suggest.

Can you perhaps work with Dave on some common resolution?

> We can remove everything from struct sb_writers except frozen
> (which can become a boolean, it seems) and add the array of

I think 'int' for 'frozen' needs to stay - we need to distinguish at least
three states - unfrozen, in the process of being frozen, frozen.

> percpu_rw_semaphore's instead.
> 
> __sb_start/end_write() can use percpu_down/up_read(), and
> freeze/thaw_super() can use percpu_down/up_write().
> 
> Why:
> 
> 	- Firstly, __sb_start_write() looks simply buggy. I does
> 	  __sb_end_write() if it sees ->frozen, but if it migrates
> 	  to another CPU before percpu_counter_dec() sb_wait_write()
> 	  can wrongly succeed if there is another task which holds
> 	  the same "semaphore": sb_wait_write() can miss the result
> 	  of the previous percpu_counter_inc() but see the result
> 	  of this percpu_counter_dec().

Agreed, that's a bug.
 
> 	- This code doesn't look simple. It would be better to rely
> 	  on the generic locking code.

Definitely agreed, I just didn't find anything usable (fast enough) at
the time...

> 	- __sb_start_write() will be a little bit faster, but this
> 	  is minor.

Actually Dave could measure the gain achieved by removing the barrier. It
would be good to verify that your patches achieve a similar gain.

> Todo:
> 
> 	- __sb_start_write(wait => false) always fail.
> 
> 	  Thivial, we already have percpu_down_read_trylock() just
> 	  this patch wasn't merged yet.
> 
> 	- sb_lockdep_release() and sb_lockdep_acquire() play with
> 	  percpu_rw_semaphore's internals.
> 
> 	  Trivial, we need a couple of new helper in percpu-rwsem.c.
> 
> 	- Fix get_super_thawed(), it will spin if MS_RDONLY...
> 
> 	  It is not clear to me what exactly should we do, but this
> 	  doesn't look hard. Perhaps it can just return if MS_RDONLY.

What's the exact problem here?

> 	- Most probably I missed something else, and I do not need
> 	  how to test.
> 
> Finally. freeze_super() calls synchronize_sched_expedited() 3 times in
> a row. This is bad and just stupid. But if we change percpu_rw_semaphore
> to use rcu_sync (see https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/7/11/211) we can avoid
> this and do synchronize_sched() only once. Just we need some more simple
> changes in percpu-rwsem.c, so that all sb_writers->rw_sem[] semaphores
> could use the single sb_writers->rss.
> 
> In this case destroy_super() needs some modifications too,
> percpu_free_rwsem() will be might_sleep(). But this looks simple too.

Otherwise the general conversion idea looks good to me.

									Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/14, Jan Kara wrote:
>
>   Hello,
>
> On Mon 13-07-15 23:25:36, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > Al, Jan, could you comment? I mean the intent, the patches are
> > obviously not for inclusion yet.
>
> Thanks for the patches! Hum, what do people have with freeze protection
> these days? Noone cared about it for years and sudddently two patch sets
> within a month :) Anyway, have you seen the patch set from Dave Hansen?
>
> It is here: https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/24/682
> He modifies the freezing primitives in a different way. AFAICS the
> resulting performance of the fast path should be about the same.

At first glance, 2-3 do something similar, yes...

> So unless
> I'm missing something and there is a significant performance advantage to
> Dave's patches I'm all for using a generic primitive you suggest.

I think percpu_rw_semaphore looks a bit better. And even a bit faster.
And it will not block __sb_start_write() entirely while freeze_super()
sleeps in synchronize_rcu().

freeze_super() should be faster too after rcu_sync changes, but this
is not that important.

But again, to me the main advantage is that we can use the generic
primitives and remove this nontrivial code in fs/super.c.

> Can you perhaps work with Dave on some common resolution?

Dave, what do you think? Will you agree with percpu_rw_semaphore ?

> > 	- __sb_start_write() will be a little bit faster, but this
> > 	  is minor.
>
> Actually Dave could measure the gain achieved by removing the barrier. It
> would be good to verify that your patches achieve a similar gain.

The fast path in percpu_down_read() is really fast, it does a plain
LOAD plus __this_cpu_add() under preempt_disable(). I doubt this can
be improved. The actual code is:

	static bool update_fast_ctr(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw, unsigned int val)
	{
		bool success = false;

		preempt_disable();
		if (likely(!atomic_read(&brw->write_ctr))) {
			__this_cpu_add(*brw->fast_read_ctr, val);
			success = true;
		}
		preempt_enable();

		return success;
	}

	void percpu_down_read(struct percpu_rw_semaphore *brw)
	{
		might_sleep();
		if (likely(update_fast_ctr(brw, +1))) {
			rwsem_acquire_read(&brw->rw_sem.dep_map, 0, 0, _RET_IP_);
			return;
		}

		down_read(&brw->rw_sem);
		atomic_inc(&brw->slow_read_ctr);
		__up_read(&brw->rw_sem);
	}


> > 	- Fix get_super_thawed(), it will spin if MS_RDONLY...
> >
> > 	  It is not clear to me what exactly should we do, but this
> > 	  doesn't look hard. Perhaps it can just return if MS_RDONLY.
>
> What's the exact problem here?

Note that freeze_super() does not do sb_wait_write() (which blocks
__sb_start_write) if MS_RDONLY. This means that after 1/4 get_super_thawed()
will spin until SB_UNFROZEN in this case, sb_start_write() won't block. But
please forget, this is not the problem. I mean, afaics this is easy to fix,
but the initial version should just keep ->wait_unfrozen specially for
get_super_thawed(), then we can remove it in a separate patch.

Thanks!

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Hansen]

On 07/14/2015 06:37 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/14, Jan Kara wrote:
>> So unless
>> I'm missing something and there is a significant performance advantage to
>> Dave's patches I'm all for using a generic primitive you suggest.
> 
> I think percpu_rw_semaphore looks a bit better. And even a bit faster.
> And it will not block __sb_start_write() entirely while freeze_super()
> sleeps in synchronize_rcu().

That's true, but freeze_super() and the code blocked by it is a
super-rare path compared with write().

> freeze_super() should be faster too after rcu_sync changes, but this
> is not that important.
> 
> But again, to me the main advantage is that we can use the generic
> primitives and remove this nontrivial code in fs/super.c.
> 
>> Can you perhaps work with Dave on some common resolution?
> 
> Dave, what do you think? Will you agree with percpu_rw_semaphore ?

Using my little write-1-byte test (under will-it-scale), your 4 patches
improves the number of writes/sec by 12%.  My 3 patches improve the
number of writes/sec by 32%.

My patches manage to get rid of the memory barriers entirely in the fast
path.  Your approach keeps the barriers.

Test: https://www.sr71.net/~dave/intel/write1byte.c

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/14, Dave Hansen wrote:
>
> On 07/14/2015 06:37 AM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/14, Jan Kara wrote:
> >> So unless
> >> I'm missing something and there is a significant performance advantage to
> >> Dave's patches I'm all for using a generic primitive you suggest.
> >
> > I think percpu_rw_semaphore looks a bit better. And even a bit faster.
> > And it will not block __sb_start_write() entirely while freeze_super()
> > sleeps in synchronize_rcu().
>
> That's true, but freeze_super() and the code blocked by it is a
> super-rare path compared with write().

Yes, agreed, this is not that important too.

> > freeze_super() should be faster too after rcu_sync changes, but this
> > is not that important.
> >
> > But again, to me the main advantage is that we can use the generic
> > primitives and remove this nontrivial code in fs/super.c.
> >
> >> Can you perhaps work with Dave on some common resolution?
> >
> > Dave, what do you think? Will you agree with percpu_rw_semaphore ?
>
> Using my little write-1-byte test (under will-it-scale), your 4 patches
> improves the number of writes/sec by 12%.  My 3 patches improve the
> number of writes/sec by 32%.

Thanks... I'll try to understand.

Just in case, could you send me (offlist) these 3 patches?

> My patches manage to get rid of the memory barriers entirely in the fast
> path.  Your approach keeps the barriers.

Where? No, they do not keep the barriers.

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Hansen]

On 07/14/2015 02:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>> Using my little write-1-byte test (under will-it-scale), your 4 patches
>> improves the number of writes/sec by 12%.  My 3 patches improve the
>> number of writes/sec by 32%.

I looked at it again.  I tested with this patch in addition to the ones
modifying __sb_start/end_write():

	https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/24/682

That is where the performance delta came from.  Your patches (plus the
fsnotify optimization) perform very similarly to my approach.

Yours remove so much code that I think they are the preferable approach.

They don't compile with lockdep on, btw. :)

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Jan Kara]

On Tue 14-07-15 14:41:13, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/14/2015 02:22 PM, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >> Using my little write-1-byte test (under will-it-scale), your 4 patches
> >> improves the number of writes/sec by 12%.  My 3 patches improve the
> >> number of writes/sec by 32%.
> 
> I looked at it again.  I tested with this patch in addition to the ones
> modifying __sb_start/end_write():
> 
> 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/24/682
> 
> That is where the performance delta came from.  Your patches (plus the
> fsnotify optimization) perform very similarly to my approach.
> 
> Yours remove so much code that I think they are the preferable approach.
> 
> They don't compile with lockdep on, btw. :)

Great, thanks for hashing it out. So I'm also in favor of Oleg's approach
as well. We just have to wait until he fixes the outstanding issues with
his code. Dave, just send your fsnotify patch separately to AKPM - he
usually merges fsnotify stuff. Thanks.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/15, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Tue 14-07-15 14:41:13, Dave Hansen wrote:
> >
> > I looked at it again.  I tested with this patch in addition to the ones
> > modifying __sb_start/end_write():
> >
> > 	https://lkml.org/lkml/2015/6/24/682
> >
> > That is where the performance delta came from.  Your patches (plus the
> > fsnotify optimization) perform very similarly to my approach.
> >
> > Yours remove so much code that I think they are the preferable approach.
> >
> > They don't compile with lockdep on, btw. :)
>
> Great, thanks for hashing it out.

Yes, thanks Dave!

> So I'm also in favor of Oleg's approach
> as well. We just have to wait until he fixes the outstanding issues with
> his code.

Yes. I'll try to make the working version, hopefully this week.

But,

> Dave, just send your fsnotify patch separately to AKPM - he
> usually merges fsnotify stuff.

Perhaps it makes to merge other 2 patches from Dave first? (those which
change __sb_start/end_write to rely on RCU). Afaics these changes are
straightforward and correct. Although I'd suggest to use preempt_disable()
and synchronize_sched() instead. I will be happy to (try to) make this
conversion on top of his changes.

Because I do not want to delay the performance improvements and I do not
know when exactly I'll send the next version: I need to finish the previous
discussion about rcu_sync first. And the necessary changes in fs/super.c
depend on whether percpu_rw_semaphore will have rcu_sync or not (not too
much, only destroy_super() depends, but still).

And of course, I am worried that I missed something and percpu_rw_semaphore
can't work for some reason. The code in fs/super.c looks simple, but it
seems that filesystems do the "strange" things with lockdep at least.

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Jan Kara]

On Wed 15-07-15 20:19:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/15, Jan Kara wrote:
> > So I'm also in favor of Oleg's approach
> > as well. We just have to wait until he fixes the outstanding issues with
> > his code.
> 
> Yes. I'll try to make the working version, hopefully this week.
> 
> But,
> 
> > Dave, just send your fsnotify patch separately to AKPM - he
> > usually merges fsnotify stuff.
> 
> Perhaps it makes to merge other 2 patches from Dave first? (those which
> change __sb_start/end_write to rely on RCU). Afaics these changes are
> straightforward and correct. Although I'd suggest to use preempt_disable()
> and synchronize_sched() instead. I will be happy to (try to) make this
> conversion on top of his changes.
> 
> Because I do not want to delay the performance improvements and I do not
> know when exactly I'll send the next version: I need to finish the previous
> discussion about rcu_sync first. And the necessary changes in fs/super.c
> depend on whether percpu_rw_semaphore will have rcu_sync or not (not too
> much, only destroy_super() depends, but still).
> 
> And of course, I am worried that I missed something and percpu_rw_semaphore
> can't work for some reason. The code in fs/super.c looks simple, but it
> seems that filesystems do the "strange" things with lockdep at least.

So Dave's patches would go in only in the next merge window anyway so we
still have like two-three weeks to decide which patchset to take. If you
think it will take you longer, then merging Dave's patches makes some sense
although I personally don't think the issue is so important that we have to
fix it ASAP and eventual delay of one more release would be OK for me.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Hansen]

On 07/16/2015 12:26 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> So Dave's patches would go in only in the next merge window anyway so we
> still have like two-three weeks to decide which patchset to take. If you
> think it will take you longer, then merging Dave's patches makes some sense
> although I personally don't think the issue is so important that we have to
> fix it ASAP and eventual delay of one more release would be OK for me.

I thought of one more thing.

Oleg's patches are fast in the uncontended case.  My testing of his code
so far was all single-threaded.  Will it slow down if we throw a bunch
of threads at it an see contention?  I don't think my RCU approach will.

I can benchmark in the next few days on a larger machine.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Jan Kara]

On Thu 16-07-15 00:30:27, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 07/16/2015 12:26 AM, Jan Kara wrote:
> > So Dave's patches would go in only in the next merge window anyway so we
> > still have like two-three weeks to decide which patchset to take. If you
> > think it will take you longer, then merging Dave's patches makes some sense
> > although I personally don't think the issue is so important that we have to
> > fix it ASAP and eventual delay of one more release would be OK for me.
> 
> I thought of one more thing.
> 
> Oleg's patches are fast in the uncontended case.  My testing of his code
> so far was all single-threaded.  Will it slow down if we throw a bunch
> of threads at it an see contention?  I don't think my RCU approach will.
> 
> I can benchmark in the next few days on a larger machine.

Well, his semaphore is percpu as well so I don't think there should be a
difference (there may be some difference when freeze is in progress but
that doesn't really matter). But it's always good to verify.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/16, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Wed 15-07-15 20:19:20, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Perhaps it makes to merge other 2 patches from Dave first? (those which
> > change __sb_start/end_write to rely on RCU). Afaics these changes are
> > straightforward and correct. Although I'd suggest to use preempt_disable()
> > and synchronize_sched() instead. I will be happy to (try to) make this
> > conversion on top of his changes.
> >
> > Because I do not want to delay the performance improvements and I do not
> > know when exactly I'll send the next version: I need to finish the previous
> > discussion about rcu_sync first. And the necessary changes in fs/super.c
> > depend on whether percpu_rw_semaphore will have rcu_sync or not (not too
> > much, only destroy_super() depends, but still).
> >
> > And of course, I am worried that I missed something and percpu_rw_semaphore
> > can't work for some reason. The code in fs/super.c looks simple, but it
> > seems that filesystems do the "strange" things with lockdep at least.
>
> So Dave's patches would go in only in the next merge window anyway so we
> still have like two-three weeks to decide which patchset to take.

OK, good.

> If you
> think it will take you longer,

Hopefully not.

> then merging Dave's patches makes some sense
> although I personally don't think the issue is so important that we have to
> fix it ASAP and eventual delay of one more release would be OK for me.

OK. I will try to do this in any case, I just wanted to say that I can
equally do this on top of Dave's patches.

To remind, I need to finish the discussion about percpu_rw_semaphore
and rcu_sync, then I'll try to make v2.

And. The biggest problem is lockdep. Everything else looks really simple
although of course I could miss something. And not only because the
filesystems abuse lockdep and thus we need some cleanups first. Unless
I am totally confused fs/super.c needs some cleanups (and fixes) too,
with or without this conversion. Say, acquire_freeze_lock() logic does
do not look right:

	- wait_event(.frozen < level) without rwsem_acquire_read() is
	  just wrong from lockdep perspective. If we are going to deadlock
	  because the caller is buggy, lockdep can't warn us.

	- __sb_start_write() can race with thaw_super() + freeze_super(),
	  and after "goto retry" the 2nd  acquire_freeze_lock() is wrong.

	- The "tell lockdep we are doing trylock" hack doesn't look nice.

	  I think this is correct, but this logic should be more explicit.
	  Yes, the recursive read_lock() is fine if we hold the lock on
	  higher level. But we do not need to fool lockdep. If we can not
	  deadlock in this case (and I agree we can't) we should simply use
	  wait == F consistently.

Something like this (not even compiled tested):

	static int
	do_sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool wait, unsigned long ip)
	{

		if (wait)
			rwsem_acquire_read(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, 0, ip);
	retry:
		if (unlikely(sb->s_writers.frozen >= level)) {
			if (!wait)
				return 0;
			wait_event(sb->s_writers.wait_unfrozen,
				   sb->s_writers.frozen < level);
		}

		percpu_counter_inc(&sb->s_writers.counter[level-1]);
		/*
		 * Make sure counter is updated before we check for frozen.
		 * freeze_super() first sets frozen and then checks the counter.
		 */
		smp_mb();
		if (unlikely(sb->s_writers.frozen >= level)) {
			__sb_end_write(sb, level);
			goto retry;
		}

		if (!wait)
			rwsem_acquire_read(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[level-1], 0, 1, ip);
		return 1;
	}

	/*
	 * This is an internal function, please use sb_start_{write,pagefault,intwrite}
	 * instead.
	 */
	int __sb_start_write(struct super_block *sb, int level, bool wait)
	{
		bool cantbelocked = false;
		int ret;

	#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
		/*
		 * We want lockdep to tell us about possible deadlocks with freezing but
		 * it's it bit tricky to properly instrument it. Getting a freeze protection
		 * works as getting a read lock but there are subtle problems. XFS for example
		 * gets freeze protection on internal level twice in some cases, which is OK
		 * only because we already hold a freeze protection also on higher level. Due
		 * to these cases we have to use wait == F (trylock mode) which must not fail.
		 */
		if (wait) {
			int i;

			for (i = 0; i < level - 1; i++)
				if (lock_is_held(&sb->s_writers.lock_map[i])) {
					cantbelocked = true;
					break;
				}
		}
	#endif
		ret = do_sb_start_write(sb, level, wait && !cantbelocked, _RET_IP_);
		WARN_ON(cantbelocked & !ret);
		return ret;
	}

This should not generate the additional code if CONFIG_LOCKDEP=n and
After this patch it will be trivial to convert __sb_start_write(), but
we need some more cleanups. And perhaps I'll send some changes (like
above) separately, because again, I think they make sense in any case.

In short: I'll try to make v2 asap, but this is all I can promise ;)

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Chinner]

On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:32:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> 
> 	#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> 		/*
> 		 * We want lockdep to tell us about possible deadlocks with freezing but
> 		 * it's it bit tricky to properly instrument it. Getting a freeze protection
> 		 * works as getting a read lock but there are subtle problems. XFS for example
> 		 * gets freeze protection on internal level twice in some cases, which is OK

Sorry, I've missed something here - where is XFS nesting
sb_start_intwrite() calls?  XFS only has a call to
sb_start_intwrite() in xfs_trans_alloc() and an open coded
equivalent in xfs_iomap_write_unwritten(). However, we cannot create
nested transaction contexts as doing so is *guaranteed to deadlock
the journal*. (e.g. why we use PF_FSTRANS to trigger GFP_NOFS
allocation as it prevents direct memory reclaim from causing nested
transactions.) Hence if we taking multiple FREEZE_FS level
references at a time then there is a bug that needs fixing....

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/17, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:32:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > 	#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > 		/*
> > 		 * We want lockdep to tell us about possible deadlocks with freezing but
> > 		 * it's it bit tricky to properly instrument it. Getting a freeze protection
> > 		 * works as getting a read lock but there are subtle problems. XFS for example
> > 		 * gets freeze protection on internal level twice in some cases, which is OK
>
> Sorry, I've missed something here - where is XFS nesting
> sb_start_intwrite() calls?

Heh ;) I too tried to understand thi but failed. I was not surprized,
I know nothing about fs/.

Dave, I didn't write this comment. Please look at acquire_freeze_lock().
If we can remove this logic - great! but this needs a separate change.

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Dave Chinner]

On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:31:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> On 07/17, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:32:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > >
> > > 	#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > > 		/*
> > > 		 * We want lockdep to tell us about possible deadlocks with freezing but
> > > 		 * it's it bit tricky to properly instrument it. Getting a freeze protection
> > > 		 * works as getting a read lock but there are subtle problems. XFS for example
> > > 		 * gets freeze protection on internal level twice in some cases, which is OK
> >
> > Sorry, I've missed something here - where is XFS nesting
> > sb_start_intwrite() calls?
> 
> Heh ;) I too tried to understand thi but failed. I was not surprized,
> I know nothing about fs/.
> 
> Dave, I didn't write this comment. Please look at acquire_freeze_lock().
> If we can remove this logic - great! but this needs a separate change.

Oh, I think I know what it was - when we duplicate a transaction for
a rolling commit, we do it before committing the current transaction
is committed. I *think* that used to take a second freeze reference,
which only existed until the first transaction was committed. We do
things a bit differently now - we hold a state flag on the
transaction to indicate it needs to release the freeze reference
when it is freed and we pass it to the new transaction so that the
first transaction commit doesn't release it.

So, yes, it may well be a stale comment now.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Jan Kara]

On Sat 18-07-15 08:40:15, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:31:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > On 07/17, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 07:32:56PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 	#ifdef CONFIG_LOCKDEP
> > > > 		/*
> > > > 		 * We want lockdep to tell us about possible deadlocks with freezing but
> > > > 		 * it's it bit tricky to properly instrument it. Getting a freeze protection
> > > > 		 * works as getting a read lock but there are subtle problems. XFS for example
> > > > 		 * gets freeze protection on internal level twice in some cases, which is OK
> > >
> > > Sorry, I've missed something here - where is XFS nesting
> > > sb_start_intwrite() calls?
> > 
> > Heh ;) I too tried to understand thi but failed. I was not surprized,
> > I know nothing about fs/.
> > 
> > Dave, I didn't write this comment. Please look at acquire_freeze_lock().
> > If we can remove this logic - great! but this needs a separate change.
> 
> Oh, I think I know what it was - when we duplicate a transaction for
> a rolling commit, we do it before committing the current transaction
> is committed. I *think* that used to take a second freeze reference,
> which only existed until the first transaction was committed. We do
> things a bit differently now - we hold a state flag on the
> transaction to indicate it needs to release the freeze reference
> when it is freed and we pass it to the new transaction so that the
> first transaction commit doesn't release it.
> 
> So, yes, it may well be a stale comment now.

Yeah, as far as I remember this was the reason why I added the comment. So
Oleg, feel free to remove the special code and run xfstests with XFS and
lockdep enabled to verify there are really no issues. Thanks!

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/20, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> On Sat 18-07-15 08:40:15, Dave Chinner wrote:
> >
> > So, yes, it may well be a stale comment now.
>
> Yeah, as far as I remember this was the reason why I added the comment. So
> Oleg, feel free to remove the special code and run xfstests with XFS and
> lockdep enabled to verify there are really no issues. Thanks!

OK, thanks, will try to do later. Please see another series I'll send
in a few minutes.

Oleg.

Re: [PATCH RFC 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 07/18, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 07:31:17PM +0200, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
> >
> > Dave, I didn't write this comment. Please look at acquire_freeze_lock().
> > If we can remove this logic - great! but this needs a separate change.
>
> Oh, I think I know what it was - when we duplicate a transaction for
> a rolling commit, we do it before committing the current transaction
> is committed. I *think* that used to take a second freeze reference,
> which only existed until the first transaction was committed. We do
> things a bit differently now - we hold a state flag on the
> transaction to indicate it needs to release the freeze reference
> when it is freed and we pass it to the new transaction so that the
> first transaction commit doesn't release it.

Just fyi, please do not assume I can understand the explanation above ;)

> So, yes, it may well be a stale comment now.

Perhaps. But this needs a separate change. Plus even if we remove this
hack, this code has other problems with lockdep.

I'll send the "lockdep" fixes/cleanup today, please review.

Oleg.