* [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO
@ 2016-07-07 4:49 Chao Yu
2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2016-07-07 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: jaegeuk; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel, Chao Yu
From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
face race case as below:
For write case:
Thread A Thread B
- generic_file_direct_write
- invalidate_inode_pages2_range
- f2fs_direct_IO
- do_blockdev_direct_IO
- do_direct_IO
- get_more_blocks
- f2fs_gc
- do_garbage_collect
- gc_data_segment
- move_data_page
- do_write_data_page
migrate data block to new block address
- dio_bio_submit
update user data to old block address
For read case:
Thread A Thread B
- generic_file_direct_write
- invalidate_inode_pages2_range
- f2fs_direct_IO
- do_blockdev_direct_IO
- do_direct_IO
- get_more_blocks
- f2fs_balance_fs
- f2fs_gc
- do_garbage_collect
- gc_data_segment
- move_data_page
- do_write_data_page
migrate data block to new block address
- write_checkpoint
- do_checkpoint
- clear_prefree_segments
- f2fs_issue_discard
discard old block adress
- dio_bio_submit
update user buffer from obsolete block address
In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
against with each other.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio.
fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++
fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 +
4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
@@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
{
struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
+ struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter);
loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
int err;
@@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
+ down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
+ up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
+
if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
if (err > 0)
set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
+++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
@@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
+ struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */
};
static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
@@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step:
/* phase 3 */
inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
if (inode) {
+ struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
+ bool locked = false;
+
+ if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
+ if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem))
+ continue;
+ locked = true;
+ }
+
start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
+ ofs_in_node;
if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
else
move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
+
+ if (locked)
+ up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem);
+
stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
}
}
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
@@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
+ init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem);
/* Will be used by directory only */
fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
--
2.7.2
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO
2016-07-07 4:49 [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO Chao Yu
@ 2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-08 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel, Chao Yu
Hi Chao,
Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013?
[ 502.480850] ======================================================
[ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
[ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE
[ 502.480886] -------------------------------------------------------
[ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
[ 502.480948]
[ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock:
[ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
[ 502.481003]
[ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 502.481003]
[ 502.481018]
[ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 502.481030]
[ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}:
[ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
[ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0
[ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
[ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160
[ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0
[ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs]
[ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140
[ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0
[ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0
[ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
[ 502.481236]
[ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}:
[ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940
[ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
[ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0
[ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
[ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40
[ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs]
[ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0
[ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130
[ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140
[ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0
[ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
[ 502.481445]
[ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this:
[ 502.481445]
[ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 502.481459]
[ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1
[ 502.481987] ---- ----
[ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
[ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
[ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
[ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
[ 502.483285]
[ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK ***
[ 502.483285]
[ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729:
[ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
Thanks,
On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>
> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
> face race case as below:
>
> For write case:
> Thread A Thread B
> - generic_file_direct_write
> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> - f2fs_direct_IO
> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> - do_direct_IO
> - get_more_blocks
> - f2fs_gc
> - do_garbage_collect
> - gc_data_segment
> - move_data_page
> - do_write_data_page
> migrate data block to new block address
> - dio_bio_submit
> update user data to old block address
>
> For read case:
> Thread A Thread B
> - generic_file_direct_write
> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> - f2fs_direct_IO
> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> - do_direct_IO
> - get_more_blocks
> - f2fs_balance_fs
> - f2fs_gc
> - do_garbage_collect
> - gc_data_segment
> - move_data_page
> - do_write_data_page
> migrate data block to new block address
> - write_checkpoint
> - do_checkpoint
> - clear_prefree_segments
> - f2fs_issue_discard
> discard old block adress
> - dio_bio_submit
> update user buffer from obsolete block address
>
> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
> against with each other.
>
> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> ---
> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio.
> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++
> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 +
> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> {
> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
> struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter);
> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
> int err;
> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>
> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>
> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> +
> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
> if (err > 0)
> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */
> };
>
> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step:
> /* phase 3 */
> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
> if (inode) {
> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
> + bool locked = false;
> +
> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem))
> + continue;
> + locked = true;
> + }
> +
> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
> + ofs_in_node;
> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
> else
> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
> +
> + if (locked)
> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> +
> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
> }
> }
> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644
> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>
> /* Will be used by directory only */
> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
> --
> 2.7.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO
2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu
2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2016-07-08 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel, Chao Yu
Hi Jaegeuk,
On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> Hi Chao,
>
> Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013?
>
> [ 502.480850] ======================================================
> [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE
> [ 502.480886] -------------------------------------------------------
> [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock:
> [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
> [ 502.480948]
> [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock:
> [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> [ 502.481003]
> [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> [ 502.481003]
> [ 502.481018]
> [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> [ 502.481030]
> [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
> [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0
> [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160
> [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0
> [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs]
> [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140
> [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0
> [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0
> [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
> [ 502.481236]
> [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}:
> [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940
> [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
> [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0
> [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
> [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40
> [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0
> [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130
> [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140
> [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0
> [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
> [ 502.481445]
> [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this:
> [ 502.481445]
> [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> [ 502.481459]
> [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1
> [ 502.481987] ---- ----
> [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
> [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock:
writer reader
- f2fs_file_write_iter
- down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
- __generic_file_write_iter
- generic_file_direct_write
- f2fs_direct_IO
- generic_file_read_iter
- f2fs_direct_IO
- down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
- __blockdev_direct_IO
- do_blockdev_direct_IO
- down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
- down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to
avoid deadlock?
Thanks,
> [ 502.483285]
> [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK ***
> [ 502.483285]
> [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729:
> [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
>
> Thanks,
>
> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>
>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
>> face race case as below:
>>
>> For write case:
>> Thread A Thread B
>> - generic_file_direct_write
>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>> - do_direct_IO
>> - get_more_blocks
>> - f2fs_gc
>> - do_garbage_collect
>> - gc_data_segment
>> - move_data_page
>> - do_write_data_page
>> migrate data block to new block address
>> - dio_bio_submit
>> update user data to old block address
>>
>> For read case:
>> Thread A Thread B
>> - generic_file_direct_write
>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>> - do_direct_IO
>> - get_more_blocks
>> - f2fs_balance_fs
>> - f2fs_gc
>> - do_garbage_collect
>> - gc_data_segment
>> - move_data_page
>> - do_write_data_page
>> migrate data block to new block address
>> - write_checkpoint
>> - do_checkpoint
>> - clear_prefree_segments
>> - f2fs_issue_discard
>> discard old block adress
>> - dio_bio_submit
>> update user buffer from obsolete block address
>>
>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
>> against with each other.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>> ---
>> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio.
>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++
>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 +
>> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>> {
>> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
>> struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
>> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter);
>> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
>> int err;
>> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>
>> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>>
>> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
>> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>> +
>> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
>> if (err > 0)
>> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
>> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
>> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
>> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
>> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */
>> };
>>
>> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step:
>> /* phase 3 */
>> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
>> if (inode) {
>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
>> + bool locked = false;
>> +
>> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
>> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem))
>> + continue;
>> + locked = true;
>> + }
>> +
>> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
>> + ofs_in_node;
>> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
>> else
>> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
>> +
>> + if (locked)
>> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>> +
>> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
>> }
>> }
>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644
>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
>> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
>> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>>
>> /* Will be used by directory only */
>> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
>> --
>> 2.7.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO
2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu
@ 2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-09 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel, Chao Yu
On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:50:02PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> Hi Jaegeuk,
>
> On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > Hi Chao,
> >
> > Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013?
> >
> > [ 502.480850] ======================================================
> > [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> > [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE
> > [ 502.480886] -------------------------------------------------------
> > [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock:
> > [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
> > [ 502.480948]
> > [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock:
> > [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> > [ 502.481003]
> > [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> > [ 502.481003]
> > [ 502.481018]
> > [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> > [ 502.481030]
> > [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> > [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
> > [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0
> > [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> > [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160
> > [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0
> > [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs]
> > [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140
> > [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0
> > [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0
> > [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
> > [ 502.481236]
> > [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}:
> > [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940
> > [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
> > [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0
> > [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
> > [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40
> > [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> > [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0
> > [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130
> > [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140
> > [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0
> > [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
> > [ 502.481445]
> > [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this:
> > [ 502.481445]
> > [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> > [ 502.481459]
> > [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1
> > [ 502.481987] ---- ----
> > [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> > [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
> > [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> > [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
>
> Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock:
>
> writer reader
> - f2fs_file_write_iter
> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
> - __generic_file_write_iter
> - generic_file_direct_write
> - f2fs_direct_IO
> - generic_file_read_iter
> - f2fs_direct_IO
> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
> - __blockdev_direct_IO
> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
>
> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
>
> What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to
> avoid deadlock?
Hmm, how about inode_trylock in GC?
>
> Thanks,
>
> > [ 502.483285]
> > [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK ***
> > [ 502.483285]
> > [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729:
> > [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>
> >> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
> >> face race case as below:
> >>
> >> For write case:
> >> Thread A Thread B
> >> - generic_file_direct_write
> >> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >> - f2fs_direct_IO
> >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >> - do_direct_IO
> >> - get_more_blocks
> >> - f2fs_gc
> >> - do_garbage_collect
> >> - gc_data_segment
> >> - move_data_page
> >> - do_write_data_page
> >> migrate data block to new block address
> >> - dio_bio_submit
> >> update user data to old block address
> >>
> >> For read case:
> >> Thread A Thread B
> >> - generic_file_direct_write
> >> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >> - f2fs_direct_IO
> >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >> - do_direct_IO
> >> - get_more_blocks
> >> - f2fs_balance_fs
> >> - f2fs_gc
> >> - do_garbage_collect
> >> - gc_data_segment
> >> - move_data_page
> >> - do_write_data_page
> >> migrate data block to new block address
> >> - write_checkpoint
> >> - do_checkpoint
> >> - clear_prefree_segments
> >> - f2fs_issue_discard
> >> discard old block adress
> >> - dio_bio_submit
> >> update user buffer from obsolete block address
> >>
> >> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
> >> against with each other.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >> ---
> >> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio.
> >> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++
> >> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> >> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> >> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 +
> >> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> >> {
> >> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
> >> struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> >> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
> >> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter);
> >> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
> >> int err;
> >> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> >>
> >> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
> >>
> >> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
> >> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >> +
> >> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
> >> if (err > 0)
> >> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
> >> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
> >> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
> >> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
> >> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */
> >> };
> >>
> >> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step:
> >> /* phase 3 */
> >> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
> >> if (inode) {
> >> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
> >> + bool locked = false;
> >> +
> >> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> >> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem))
> >> + continue;
> >> + locked = true;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
> >> + ofs_in_node;
> >> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> >> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
> >> else
> >> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
> >> +
> >> + if (locked)
> >> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >> +
> >> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
> >> }
> >> }
> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644
> >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
> >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
> >> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
> >> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >>
> >> /* Will be used by directory only */
> >> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
> >> --
> >> 2.7.2
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO
2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu
2016-07-12 17:09 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2016-07-12 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel
On 2016/7/10 0:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:50:02PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi Jaegeuk,
>>
>> On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> Hi Chao,
>>>
>>> Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013?
>>>
>>> [ 502.480850] ======================================================
>>> [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>>> [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE
>>> [ 502.480886] -------------------------------------------------------
>>> [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock:
>>> [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
>>> [ 502.480948]
>>> [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock:
>>> [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
>>> [ 502.481003]
>>> [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>> [ 502.481003]
>>> [ 502.481018]
>>> [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>> [ 502.481030]
>>> [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}:
>>> [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
>>> [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0
>>> [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
>>> [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160
>>> [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0
>>> [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs]
>>> [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140
>>> [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0
>>> [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0
>>> [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
>>> [ 502.481236]
>>> [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}:
>>> [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940
>>> [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
>>> [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0
>>> [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
>>> [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40
>>> [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs]
>>> [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0
>>> [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130
>>> [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140
>>> [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0
>>> [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
>>> [ 502.481445]
>>> [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this:
>>> [ 502.481445]
>>> [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
>>> [ 502.481459]
>>> [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1
>>> [ 502.481987] ---- ----
>>> [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>>> [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
>>> [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>>> [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
>>
>> Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock:
>>
>> writer reader
>> - f2fs_file_write_iter
>> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
>> - __generic_file_write_iter
>> - generic_file_direct_write
>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>> - generic_file_read_iter
>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
>> - __blockdev_direct_IO
>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
>>
>> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
>>
>> What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to
>> avoid deadlock?
>
> Hmm, how about inode_trylock in GC?
If we reuse inode->i_rwsem here, we will suffer the same issue when we remove
i_rwsem lock in dio writer or dio reader for better concurrency.
So I think it's better to use separate lock to just fix this issue.
Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> [ 502.483285]
>>> [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK ***
>>> [ 502.483285]
>>> [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729:
>>> [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>>
>>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
>>>> face race case as below:
>>>>
>>>> For write case:
>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>> - do_direct_IO
>>>> - get_more_blocks
>>>> - f2fs_gc
>>>> - do_garbage_collect
>>>> - gc_data_segment
>>>> - move_data_page
>>>> - do_write_data_page
>>>> migrate data block to new block address
>>>> - dio_bio_submit
>>>> update user data to old block address
>>>>
>>>> For read case:
>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>> - generic_file_direct_write
>>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
>>>> - f2fs_direct_IO
>>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
>>>> - do_direct_IO
>>>> - get_more_blocks
>>>> - f2fs_balance_fs
>>>> - f2fs_gc
>>>> - do_garbage_collect
>>>> - gc_data_segment
>>>> - move_data_page
>>>> - do_write_data_page
>>>> migrate data block to new block address
>>>> - write_checkpoint
>>>> - do_checkpoint
>>>> - clear_prefree_segments
>>>> - f2fs_issue_discard
>>>> discard old block adress
>>>> - dio_bio_submit
>>>> update user buffer from obsolete block address
>>>>
>>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
>>>> against with each other.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio.
>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++
>>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
>>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
>>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 +
>>>> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>>> {
>>>> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
>>>> struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
>>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
>>>> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter);
>>>> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
>>>> int err;
>>>> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
>>>>
>>>> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
>>>>
>>>> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>>>> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
>>>> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>>>> +
>>>> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
>>>> if (err > 0)
>>>> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
>>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
>>>> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
>>>> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
>>>> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
>>>> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */
>>>> };
>>>>
>>>> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step:
>>>> /* phase 3 */
>>>> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
>>>> if (inode) {
>>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
>>>> + bool locked = false;
>>>> +
>>>> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
>>>> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem))
>>>> + continue;
>>>> + locked = true;
>>>> + }
>>>> +
>>>> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
>>>> + ofs_in_node;
>>>> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
>>>> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
>>>> else
>>>> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
>>>> +
>>>> + if (locked)
>>>> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>>>> +
>>>> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
>>>> }
>>>> }
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
>>>> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
>>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
>>>> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
>>>> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem);
>>>>
>>>> /* Will be used by directory only */
>>>> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
>>>> --
>>>> 2.7.2
>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO
2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu
@ 2016-07-12 17:09 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-12 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel
On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:28:26AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2016/7/10 0:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:50:02PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>
> >> On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> Hi Chao,
> >>>
> >>> Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013?
> >>>
> >>> [ 502.480850] ======================================================
> >>> [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
> >>> [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE
> >>> [ 502.480886] -------------------------------------------------------
> >>> [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock:
> >>> [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
> >>> [ 502.480948]
> >>> [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock:
> >>> [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> >>> [ 502.481003]
> >>> [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock.
> >>> [ 502.481003]
> >>> [ 502.481018]
> >>> [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
> >>> [ 502.481030]
> >>> [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}:
> >>> [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
> >>> [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0
> >>> [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> >>> [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160
> >>> [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0
> >>> [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs]
> >>> [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140
> >>> [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0
> >>> [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0
> >>> [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
> >>> [ 502.481236]
> >>> [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}:
> >>> [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940
> >>> [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220
> >>> [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0
> >>> [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310
> >>> [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40
> >>> [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> >>> [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0
> >>> [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130
> >>> [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140
> >>> [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0
> >>> [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1
> >>> [ 502.481445]
> >>> [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this:
> >>> [ 502.481445]
> >>> [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
> >>> [ 502.481459]
> >>> [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1
> >>> [ 502.481987] ---- ----
> >>> [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >>> [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
> >>> [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >>> [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18);
> >>
> >> Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock:
> >>
> >> writer reader
> >> - f2fs_file_write_iter
> >> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
> >> - __generic_file_write_iter
> >> - generic_file_direct_write
> >> - f2fs_direct_IO
> >> - generic_file_read_iter
> >> - f2fs_direct_IO
> >> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
> >> - __blockdev_direct_IO
> >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem)
> >>
> >> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem)
> >>
> >> What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to
> >> avoid deadlock?
> >
> > Hmm, how about inode_trylock in GC?
>
> If we reuse inode->i_rwsem here, we will suffer the same issue when we remove
> i_rwsem lock in dio writer or dio reader for better concurrency.
>
> So I think it's better to use separate lock to just fix this issue.
Got it.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> [ 502.483285]
> >>> [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK ***
> >>> [ 502.483285]
> >>> [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729:
> >>> [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs]
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will
> >>>> face race case as below:
> >>>>
> >>>> For write case:
> >>>> Thread A Thread B
> >>>> - generic_file_direct_write
> >>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >>>> - f2fs_direct_IO
> >>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >>>> - do_direct_IO
> >>>> - get_more_blocks
> >>>> - f2fs_gc
> >>>> - do_garbage_collect
> >>>> - gc_data_segment
> >>>> - move_data_page
> >>>> - do_write_data_page
> >>>> migrate data block to new block address
> >>>> - dio_bio_submit
> >>>> update user data to old block address
> >>>>
> >>>> For read case:
> >>>> Thread A Thread B
> >>>> - generic_file_direct_write
> >>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range
> >>>> - f2fs_direct_IO
> >>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO
> >>>> - do_direct_IO
> >>>> - get_more_blocks
> >>>> - f2fs_balance_fs
> >>>> - f2fs_gc
> >>>> - do_garbage_collect
> >>>> - gc_data_segment
> >>>> - move_data_page
> >>>> - do_write_data_page
> >>>> migrate data block to new block address
> >>>> - write_checkpoint
> >>>> - do_checkpoint
> >>>> - clear_prefree_segments
> >>>> - f2fs_issue_discard
> >>>> discard old block adress
> >>>> - dio_bio_submit
> >>>> update user buffer from obsolete block address
> >>>>
> >>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion
> >>>> against with each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio.
> >>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++
> >>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 +
> >>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> >>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 +
> >>>> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> >>>> {
> >>>> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping;
> >>>> struct inode *inode = mapping->host;
> >>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
> >>>> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter);
> >>>> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos;
> >>>> int err;
> >>>> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter)
> >>>>
> >>>> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter));
> >>>>
> >>>> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >>>> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio);
> >>>> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >>>> +
> >>>> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) {
> >>>> if (err > 0)
> >>>> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE);
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>>> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h
> >>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info {
> >>>> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */
> >>>> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */
> >>>> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */
> >>>> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */
> >>>> };
> >>>>
> >>>> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext,
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>>> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
> >>>> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step:
> >>>> /* phase 3 */
> >>>> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino);
> >>>> if (inode) {
> >>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode);
> >>>> + bool locked = false;
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) {
> >>>> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem))
> >>>> + continue;
> >>>> + locked = true;
> >>>> + }
> >>>> +
> >>>> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode)
> >>>> + ofs_in_node;
> >>>> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode))
> >>>> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx);
> >>>> else
> >>>> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type);
> >>>> +
> >>>> + if (locked)
> >>>> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >>>> +
> >>>> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type);
> >>>> }
> >>>> }
> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>>> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644
> >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c
> >>>> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb)
> >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list);
> >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages);
> >>>> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock);
> >>>> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem);
> >>>>
> >>>> /* Will be used by directory only */
> >>>> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level;
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.7.2
> >
> > .
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-12 17:09 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-07-07 4:49 [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO Chao Yu
2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu
2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu
2016-07-12 17:09 ` Jaegeuk Kim
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).