| Message ID | 153374942137.42241.10539674028265137668.stgit@djiang5-desk3.ch.intel.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | None | expand |
On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 10:31:40AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. > > If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned > by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in > xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function > xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that > xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop > looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. > > Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us > a page which it found with an elevated refcount. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > --- > > Sorry resend, forgot to add Jan's reviewed-by. > > v2: > - Rename parameter from did_unlock to retry (Jan) > > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 9 ++++----- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > @@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter( > > static void > xfs_wait_dax_page( > - struct inode *inode, > - bool *did_unlock) > + struct inode *inode) > { > struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); > > - *did_unlock = true; > xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); > schedule(); > xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); > @@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int > xfs_break_dax_layouts( > struct inode *inode, > uint iolock, > - bool *did_unlock) > + bool *retry) Uhhh, this hunk doesn't apply. xfs_break_dax_layouts doesn't have an iolock parameter anymore; was this not generated off of xfs for-next? --D > { > struct page *page; > > @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts( > if (!page) > return 0; > > + *retry = true; > return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount, > atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, > - 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock)); > + 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode)); > } > > int > > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 08/10/2018 08:48 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 10:31:40AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. >> >> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned >> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in >> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function >> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that >> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop >> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. >> >> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us >> a page which it found with an elevated refcount. >> >> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> >> --- >> >> Sorry resend, forgot to add Jan's reviewed-by. >> >> v2: >> - Rename parameter from did_unlock to retry (Jan) >> >> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 9 ++++----- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644 >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> @@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter( >> >> static void >> xfs_wait_dax_page( >> - struct inode *inode, >> - bool *did_unlock) >> + struct inode *inode) >> { >> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); >> >> - *did_unlock = true; >> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); >> schedule(); >> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); >> @@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int >> xfs_break_dax_layouts( >> struct inode *inode, >> uint iolock, >> - bool *did_unlock) >> + bool *retry) > > Uhhh, this hunk doesn't apply. xfs_break_dax_layouts doesn't have an > iolock parameter anymore; was this not generated off of xfs for-next? Sorry. It was generated against 4.18-rc8. I'll respin patch against xfs for-next. > > --D > >> { >> struct page *page; >> >> @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts( >> if (!page) >> return 0; >> >> + *retry = true; >> return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount, >> atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, >> - 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock)); >> + 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode)); >> } >> >> int >> >> -- >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 08:54:00AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > > > On 08/10/2018 08:48 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 10:31:40AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: > >> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. > >> > >> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned > >> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in > >> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function > >> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that > >> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop > >> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. > >> > >> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us > >> a page which it found with an elevated refcount. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> > >> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > >> --- > >> > >> Sorry resend, forgot to add Jan's reviewed-by. > >> > >> v2: > >> - Rename parameter from did_unlock to retry (Jan) > >> > >> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 9 ++++----- > >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > >> index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644 > >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > >> @@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter( > >> > >> static void > >> xfs_wait_dax_page( > >> - struct inode *inode, > >> - bool *did_unlock) > >> + struct inode *inode) > >> { > >> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); > >> > >> - *did_unlock = true; > >> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); > >> schedule(); > >> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); > >> @@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int > >> xfs_break_dax_layouts( > >> struct inode *inode, > >> uint iolock, > >> - bool *did_unlock) > >> + bool *retry) > > > > Uhhh, this hunk doesn't apply. xfs_break_dax_layouts doesn't have an > > iolock parameter anymore; was this not generated off of xfs for-next? > > Sorry. It was generated against 4.18-rc8. I'll respin patch against xfs > for-next. I think it's just a matter of taking the old patch and changing "did_unlock" to "retry", right? If so, I'll just change that and be done with this one. :) --D > > > > --D > > > >> { > >> struct page *page; > >> > >> @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts( > >> if (!page) > >> return 0; > >> > >> + *retry = true; > >> return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount, > >> atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, > >> - 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock)); > >> + 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode)); > >> } > >> > >> int > >> > >> -- > >> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in > >> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > >> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 08/10/2018 09:02 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 08:54:00AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >> >> >> On 08/10/2018 08:48 AM, Darrick J. Wong wrote: >>> On Wed, Aug 08, 2018 at 10:31:40AM -0700, Dave Jiang wrote: >>>> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. >>>> >>>> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned >>>> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in >>>> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function >>>> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that >>>> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop >>>> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. >>>> >>>> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us >>>> a page which it found with an elevated refcount. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> >>>> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> >>>> --- >>>> >>>> Sorry resend, forgot to add Jan's reviewed-by. >>>> >>>> v2: >>>> - Rename parameter from did_unlock to retry (Jan) >>>> >>>> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 9 ++++----- >>>> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >>>> index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >>>> @@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter( >>>> >>>> static void >>>> xfs_wait_dax_page( >>>> - struct inode *inode, >>>> - bool *did_unlock) >>>> + struct inode *inode) >>>> { >>>> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); >>>> >>>> - *did_unlock = true; >>>> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); >>>> schedule(); >>>> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); >>>> @@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int >>>> xfs_break_dax_layouts( >>>> struct inode *inode, >>>> uint iolock, >>>> - bool *did_unlock) >>>> + bool *retry) >>> >>> Uhhh, this hunk doesn't apply. xfs_break_dax_layouts doesn't have an >>> iolock parameter anymore; was this not generated off of xfs for-next? >> >> Sorry. It was generated against 4.18-rc8. I'll respin patch against xfs >> for-next. > > I think it's just a matter of taking the old patch and changing > "did_unlock" to "retry", right? If so, I'll just change that and be > done with this one. :) For the conflict part yes. Thanks! :) > > --D > >>> >>> --D >>> >>>> { >>>> struct page *page; >>>> >>>> @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts( >>>> if (!page) >>>> return 0; >>>> >>>> + *retry = true; >>>> return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount, >>>> atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, >>>> - 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock)); >>>> + 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode)); >>>> } >>>> >>>> int >>>> >>>> -- >>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in >>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org >>>> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 8/8/18 12:31 PM, Dave Jiang wrote: > This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. > > If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned > by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in > xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function > xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that > xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop > looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. > > Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us > a page which it found with an elevated refcount. Hi Dave, does this have a testcase? Have you seen the issue using Ross's xfstest generic/503 or is there some other test? Apologies if I missed prior discussion on a testcase or race frequency... Thanks, -Eric > Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> > Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> > --- > > Sorry resend, forgot to add Jan's reviewed-by. > > v2: > - Rename parameter from did_unlock to retry (Jan) > > fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 9 ++++----- > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644 > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c > @@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter( > > static void > xfs_wait_dax_page( > - struct inode *inode, > - bool *did_unlock) > + struct inode *inode) > { > struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); > > - *did_unlock = true; > xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); > schedule(); > xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); > @@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int > xfs_break_dax_layouts( > struct inode *inode, > uint iolock, > - bool *did_unlock) > + bool *retry) > { > struct page *page; > > @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts( > if (!page) > return 0; > > + *retry = true; > return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount, > atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, > - 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock)); > + 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode)); > } > > int >
On 08/10/2018 11:31 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > On 8/8/18 12:31 PM, Dave Jiang wrote: >> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. >> >> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned >> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in >> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function >> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that >> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop >> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. >> >> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us >> a page which it found with an elevated refcount. > > Hi Dave, does this have a testcase? Have you seen the issue using Ross's > xfstest generic/503 or is there some other test? Apologies if I missed > prior discussion on a testcase or race frequency... I do not have a testcase. I know Ross replicated it on ext4. And Jan asked to create the same fix with XFS when he reviewed Ross's fix for ext4. > > Thanks, > -Eric > >> Signed-off-by: Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> >> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz> >> --- >> >> Sorry resend, forgot to add Jan's reviewed-by. >> >> v2: >> - Rename parameter from did_unlock to retry (Jan) >> >> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 9 ++++----- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644 >> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c >> @@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter( >> >> static void >> xfs_wait_dax_page( >> - struct inode *inode, >> - bool *did_unlock) >> + struct inode *inode) >> { >> struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); >> >> - *did_unlock = true; >> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); >> schedule(); >> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); >> @@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int >> xfs_break_dax_layouts( >> struct inode *inode, >> uint iolock, >> - bool *did_unlock) >> + bool *retry) >> { >> struct page *page; >> >> @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts( >> if (!page) >> return 0; >> >> + *retry = true; >> return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount, >> atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, >> - 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock)); >> + 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode)); >> } >> >> int >>
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> wrote: > On 08/10/2018 11:31 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: > > On 8/8/18 12:31 PM, Dave Jiang wrote: > >> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. > >> > >> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned > >> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in > >> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function > >> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that > >> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop > >> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. > >> > >> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us > >> a page which it found with an elevated refcount. > > > > Hi Dave, does this have a testcase? Have you seen the issue using Ross's > > xfstest generic/503 or is there some other test? Apologies if I missed > > prior discussion on a testcase or race frequency... > > I do not have a testcase. I know Ross replicated it on ext4. And Jan > asked to create the same fix with XFS when he reviewed Ross's fix for ext4. In my testing I couldn't get this race to hit with XFS. I couldn't even get a failure with generic/503 when testing XFS before Dan's initial patches went in which added xfs_break_layouts() et al. I think that Dan had to manually insert timing delays to get the warning to hit for XFS when testing his patches. The race we're fixing happens consistently with ext4 and through code inspection we can see that the race exists in XFS.
On 8/10/18 2:24 PM, Ross Zwisler wrote: > On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 9:23 AM Dave Jiang <dave.jiang@intel.com> wrote: >> On 08/10/2018 11:31 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >>> On 8/8/18 12:31 PM, Dave Jiang wrote: >>>> This patch is the duplicate of ross's fix for ext4 for xfs. >>>> >>>> If the refcount of a page is lowered between the time that it is returned >>>> by dax_busy_page() and when the refcount is again checked in >>>> xfs_break_layouts() => ___wait_var_event(), the waiting function >>>> xfs_wait_dax_page() will never be called. This means that >>>> xfs_break_layouts() will still have 'retry' set to false, so we'll stop >>>> looping and never check the refcount of other pages in this inode. >>>> >>>> Instead, always continue looping as long as dax_layout_busy_page() gives us >>>> a page which it found with an elevated refcount. >>> >>> Hi Dave, does this have a testcase? Have you seen the issue using Ross's >>> xfstest generic/503 or is there some other test? Apologies if I missed >>> prior discussion on a testcase or race frequency... >> >> I do not have a testcase. I know Ross replicated it on ext4. And Jan >> asked to create the same fix with XFS when he reviewed Ross's fix for ext4. > > In my testing I couldn't get this race to hit with XFS. I couldn't > even get a failure with generic/503 when testing XFS before Dan's > initial patches went in which added xfs_break_layouts() et al. I > think that Dan had to manually insert timing delays to get the warning > to hit for XFS when testing his patches. > > The race we're fixing happens consistently with ext4 and through code > inspection we can see that the race exists in XFS. Ok, thanks for the info Dave & Ross! -Eric
diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c index a3e7767a5715..cd6f0d8c4922 100644 --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_file.c @@ -721,12 +721,10 @@ xfs_file_write_iter( static void xfs_wait_dax_page( - struct inode *inode, - bool *did_unlock) + struct inode *inode) { struct xfs_inode *ip = XFS_I(inode); - *did_unlock = true; xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); schedule(); xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_MMAPLOCK_EXCL); @@ -736,7 +734,7 @@ static int xfs_break_dax_layouts( struct inode *inode, uint iolock, - bool *did_unlock) + bool *retry) { struct page *page; @@ -746,9 +744,10 @@ xfs_break_dax_layouts( if (!page) return 0; + *retry = true; return ___wait_var_event(&page->_refcount, atomic_read(&page->_refcount) == 1, TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, - 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode, did_unlock)); + 0, 0, xfs_wait_dax_page(inode)); } int