| Message ID | dc480ee9a7be60b4d33b5c5df58ee51aa0b9e331.1633705660.git.fdmanana@suse.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: fix a deadlock between chunk allocation and chunk tree modifications | expand |
On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in > the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with > another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. > > These contextes are the following: > > * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers > that belong to the chunk btree; > > * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item > to the chunk btree; > > * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item > from the chunk btree; > > * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in > the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond > the new device size when shrinking a device. > > The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: > > 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the > chunk mutex; > > 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent > buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as > well as its parent extent buffer; > > 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none > of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because > the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, > task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to > acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; > > 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert > the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device > items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer > that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B > is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, > therefore resulting in a deadlock. > > One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: > > INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 > Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space > Call Trace: > context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 > __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] > __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] > down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 > __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 > btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] > btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 > btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] > btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 > btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 > btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 > do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] > btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 > flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 > btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 > process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 > worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 > kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 > ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 > INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 > Call Trace: > context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] > __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 > btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 > find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] > find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 > btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 > btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 > __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 > btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 > btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 > relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] > relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 > relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 > btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 > btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 > __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] > btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 > btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 > btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 > vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] > __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] > __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] > __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 > do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] > do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree > and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove > context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. > > Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ > Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the beginning of search slot. Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use the same path for all chunk allocation. This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, Josef
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > > From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > > > When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in > > the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with > > another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. > > > > These contextes are the following: > > > > * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers > > that belong to the chunk btree; > > > > * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item > > to the chunk btree; > > > > * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item > > from the chunk btree; > > > > * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in > > the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond > > the new device size when shrinking a device. > > > > The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: > > > > 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the > > chunk mutex; > > > > 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent > > buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as > > well as its parent extent buffer; > > > > 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none > > of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because > > the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, > > task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to > > acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; > > > > 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert > > the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device > > items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer > > that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B > > is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, > > therefore resulting in a deadlock. > > > > One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: > > > > INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > > Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 > > Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space > > Call Trace: > > context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > > __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > > schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > > rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 > > __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] > > __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] > > down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 > > __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 > > btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] > > btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 > > btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] > > btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 > > btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 > > btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 > > do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] > > btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 > > flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 > > btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 > > process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 > > worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 > > kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 > > ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 > > INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > > Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > > "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 > > Call Trace: > > context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > > __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > > schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > > schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 > > __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] > > __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 > > btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 > > find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] > > find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 > > btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 > > btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 > > __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 > > btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 > > btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 > > relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] > > relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 > > relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 > > btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 > > btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 > > __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] > > btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 > > btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 > > btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 > > vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] > > __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] > > __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] > > __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 > > do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] > > do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 > > entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > > > So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree > > and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove > > context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. > > > > Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") > > Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff > > 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), > instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the > beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. > 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the > btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point > we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. > > So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation > dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's > hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have > a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the > beginning of search slot. > > Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead > we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a > btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. That was my initial idea, but I didn't find it better because it's easy to forget to make the reservation. I didn't like having to repeat it in several places either. If it makes things cleaner, I can change it back, no problem. > > Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a > RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use > the same path for all chunk allocation. > > This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely > separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, I don't get it. What do we gain by using FLUSH_LIMIT? We allocated the new system chunk (if needed) and then marked the space as reserved in the chunk reserve. The chunk reserve is only used to track reserved space until the chunk bree updates are done (either during chunk allocation/removal or for the other paths that update the chunk btree). So I don't see any advantage of using it instead of NO_FLUSH - we are not supposed to trigger chunk allocation at that point, as we just did it ourselves (and neither run delayed inodes). I.e. the btrfs_block_rsv_add(() is never supposed to fail if btrfs_create_chunk() succeeded. Thanks. > > Josef
On 10/11/21 1:31 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: >>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> >>> >>> When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in >>> the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with >>> another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. >>> >>> These contextes are the following: >>> >>> * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers >>> that belong to the chunk btree; >>> >>> * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item >>> to the chunk btree; >>> >>> * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item >>> from the chunk btree; >>> >>> * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in >>> the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond >>> the new device size when shrinking a device. >>> >>> The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: >>> >>> 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the >>> chunk mutex; >>> >>> 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent >>> buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as >>> well as its parent extent buffer; >>> >>> 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none >>> of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because >>> the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, >>> task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to >>> acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; >>> >>> 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert >>> the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device >>> items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer >>> that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B >>> is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, >>> therefore resulting in a deadlock. >>> >>> One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: >>> >>> INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. >>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 >>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. >>> task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 >>> Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space >>> Call Trace: >>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] >>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 >>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 >>> rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 >>> __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] >>> __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] >>> down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 >>> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 >>> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] >>> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 >>> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] >>> btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 >>> btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 >>> btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 >>> do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] >>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 >>> flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 >>> btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 >>> process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 >>> worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 >>> kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 >>> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 >>> INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. >>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 >>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. >>> task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 >>> Call Trace: >>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] >>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 >>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 >>> schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 >>> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] >>> __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 >>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 >>> find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] >>> find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 >>> btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 >>> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 >>> __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 >>> btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 >>> btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 >>> relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] >>> relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 >>> relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 >>> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 >>> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 >>> __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] >>> btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 >>> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 >>> btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 >>> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] >>> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] >>> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] >>> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 >>> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] >>> do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 >>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae >>> >>> So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree >>> and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove >>> context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. >>> >>> Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ >>> Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") >>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> >> >> A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff >> >> 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), >> instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the >> beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. >> 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the >> btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point >> we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. >> >> So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation >> dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's >> hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have >> a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the >> beginning of search slot. >> >> Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead >> we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a >> btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. > > That was my initial idea, but I didn't find it better because it's > easy to forget to make the reservation. > I didn't like having to repeat it in several places either. > > If it makes things cleaner, I can change it back, no problem. > I'd rather keep space reservation stuff separate so it's clear what we're doing, instead of hiding it in btrfs_search_slot() where we have to remember that we use it for chunk allocation there. >> >> Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a >> RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use >> the same path for all chunk allocation. >> >> This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely >> separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, > > I don't get it. What do we gain by using FLUSH_LIMIT? > We allocated the new system chunk (if needed) and then marked the > space as reserved in the chunk reserve. > The chunk reserve is only used to track reserved space until the chunk > bree updates are done (either during chunk allocation/removal or for > the other paths that update the chunk btree). > So I don't see any advantage of using it instead of NO_FLUSH - we are > not supposed to trigger chunk allocation at that point, as we just did > it ourselves (and neither run delayed inodes). > I.e. the btrfs_block_rsv_add(() is never supposed to fail if > btrfs_create_chunk() succeeded. > Because I want to keep chunk allocation clearly in the realm of the ENOSPC handling, so we are consistent as possible. What I want is instead of burying some if (we dont have enough chunk space) do_system_chunk_allocation() in our chunk allocation paths, we instead make sure that everywhere we're doing chunk allocation we do a ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, FLUSH_WHATEVER); do our operation btrfs_block_rsv_release(); and then when we do btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes() in the btrfs_block_rsv_add() and we need to allocate a new chunk, it happens there, where all the other chunk allocation things happen. What we gain is consistency, allocating a system chunk happens via the same path that every other chunk allocation occurs, and it uses the same mechanisms that every other metadata allocation uses. Thanks, Josef
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 6:42 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > On 10/11/21 1:31 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > >>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > >>> > >>> When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in > >>> the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with > >>> another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. > >>> > >>> These contextes are the following: > >>> > >>> * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers > >>> that belong to the chunk btree; > >>> > >>> * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item > >>> to the chunk btree; > >>> > >>> * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item > >>> from the chunk btree; > >>> > >>> * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in > >>> the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond > >>> the new device size when shrinking a device. > >>> > >>> The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: > >>> > >>> 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the > >>> chunk mutex; > >>> > >>> 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent > >>> buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as > >>> well as its parent extent buffer; > >>> > >>> 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none > >>> of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because > >>> the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, > >>> task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to > >>> acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; > >>> > >>> 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert > >>> the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device > >>> items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer > >>> that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B > >>> is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, > >>> therefore resulting in a deadlock. > >>> > >>> One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: > >>> > >>> INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > >>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > >>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > >>> task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 > >>> Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space > >>> Call Trace: > >>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > >>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > >>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > >>> rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 > >>> __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] > >>> __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] > >>> down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 > >>> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 > >>> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] > >>> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 > >>> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] > >>> btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 > >>> btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 > >>> btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 > >>> do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] > >>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 > >>> flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 > >>> btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 > >>> process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 > >>> worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 > >>> kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 > >>> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 > >>> INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > >>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > >>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > >>> task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 > >>> Call Trace: > >>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > >>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > >>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > >>> schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 > >>> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] > >>> __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 > >>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 > >>> find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] > >>> find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 > >>> btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 > >>> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 > >>> __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 > >>> btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 > >>> btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 > >>> relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] > >>> relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 > >>> relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 > >>> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 > >>> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 > >>> __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] > >>> btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 > >>> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 > >>> btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 > >>> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] > >>> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] > >>> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] > >>> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 > >>> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] > >>> do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 > >>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > >>> > >>> So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree > >>> and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove > >>> context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. > >>> > >>> Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> > >>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ > >>> Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") > >>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > >> > >> A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff > >> > >> 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), > >> instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the > >> beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. > >> 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the > >> btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point > >> we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. > >> > >> So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation > >> dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's > >> hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have > >> a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the > >> beginning of search slot. > >> > >> Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead > >> we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a > >> btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. > > > > That was my initial idea, but I didn't find it better because it's > > easy to forget to make the reservation. > > I didn't like having to repeat it in several places either. > > > > If it makes things cleaner, I can change it back, no problem. > > > > I'd rather keep space reservation stuff separate so it's clear what > we're doing, instead of hiding it in btrfs_search_slot() where we have > to remember that we use it for chunk allocation there. Ok, that can be done. I still don't like it that much, but I don't hate it either. > > >> > >> Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a > >> RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use > >> the same path for all chunk allocation. > >> > >> This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely > >> separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, > > > > I don't get it. What do we gain by using FLUSH_LIMIT? > > We allocated the new system chunk (if needed) and then marked the > > space as reserved in the chunk reserve. > > The chunk reserve is only used to track reserved space until the chunk > > bree updates are done (either during chunk allocation/removal or for > > the other paths that update the chunk btree). > > So I don't see any advantage of using it instead of NO_FLUSH - we are > > not supposed to trigger chunk allocation at that point, as we just did > > it ourselves (and neither run delayed inodes). > > I.e. the btrfs_block_rsv_add(() is never supposed to fail if > > btrfs_create_chunk() succeeded. > > > > Because I want to keep chunk allocation clearly in the realm of the > ENOSPC handling, so we are consistent as possible. > > What I want is instead of burying some > > if (we dont have enough chunk space) > do_system_chunk_allocation() > > in our chunk allocation paths, we instead make sure that everywhere > we're doing chunk allocation we do a > > ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, > FLUSH_WHATEVER); > do our operation > btrfs_block_rsv_release(); > > and then when we do btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes() in the > btrfs_block_rsv_add() and we need to allocate a new chunk, it happens > there, where all the other chunk allocation things happen. > > What we gain is consistency, allocating a system chunk happens via the > same path that every other chunk allocation occurs, and it uses the same > mechanisms that every other metadata allocation uses. Thanks, Ok, I see what you mean, and it should be possible after the changes you have been doing to the space reservation code in the last couple years or so. But that is a separate change from the bug fix, it doesn't eliminate the need to pre reserve space before doing the chunk btree updates for those cases identified in the change log. I'll do it, but obviously as a separate change. Thanks. > > Josef
On 10/11/21 2:22 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 6:42 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: >> >> On 10/11/21 1:31 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: >>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: >>>>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> >>>>> >>>>> When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in >>>>> the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with >>>>> another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. >>>>> >>>>> These contextes are the following: >>>>> >>>>> * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers >>>>> that belong to the chunk btree; >>>>> >>>>> * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item >>>>> to the chunk btree; >>>>> >>>>> * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item >>>>> from the chunk btree; >>>>> >>>>> * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in >>>>> the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond >>>>> the new device size when shrinking a device. >>>>> >>>>> The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: >>>>> >>>>> 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the >>>>> chunk mutex; >>>>> >>>>> 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent >>>>> buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as >>>>> well as its parent extent buffer; >>>>> >>>>> 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none >>>>> of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because >>>>> the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, >>>>> task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to >>>>> acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; >>>>> >>>>> 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert >>>>> the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device >>>>> items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer >>>>> that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B >>>>> is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, >>>>> therefore resulting in a deadlock. >>>>> >>>>> One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: >>>>> >>>>> INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. >>>>> task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 >>>>> Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space >>>>> Call Trace: >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 >>>>> rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 >>>>> __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] >>>>> __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] >>>>> down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 >>>>> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 >>>>> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] >>>>> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 >>>>> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 >>>>> btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 >>>>> do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 >>>>> flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 >>>>> btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 >>>>> process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 >>>>> worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 >>>>> kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 >>>>> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 >>>>> INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. >>>>> task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 >>>>> Call Trace: >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 >>>>> schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 >>>>> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] >>>>> __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 >>>>> find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] >>>>> find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 >>>>> btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 >>>>> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 >>>>> __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 >>>>> btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 >>>>> relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] >>>>> relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 >>>>> relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 >>>>> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 >>>>> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 >>>>> __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] >>>>> btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 >>>>> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 >>>>> btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 >>>>> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] >>>>> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] >>>>> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] >>>>> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 >>>>> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] >>>>> do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 >>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae >>>>> >>>>> So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree >>>>> and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove >>>>> context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. >>>>> >>>>> Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> >>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ >>>>> Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") >>>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> >>>> >>>> A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff >>>> >>>> 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), >>>> instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the >>>> beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. >>>> 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the >>>> btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point >>>> we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. >>>> >>>> So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation >>>> dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's >>>> hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have >>>> a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the >>>> beginning of search slot. >>>> >>>> Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead >>>> we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a >>>> btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. >>> >>> That was my initial idea, but I didn't find it better because it's >>> easy to forget to make the reservation. >>> I didn't like having to repeat it in several places either. >>> >>> If it makes things cleaner, I can change it back, no problem. >>> >> >> I'd rather keep space reservation stuff separate so it's clear what >> we're doing, instead of hiding it in btrfs_search_slot() where we have >> to remember that we use it for chunk allocation there. > > Ok, that can be done. I still don't like it that much, but I don't > hate it either. > Yeah it's not awesome, but I want to have clear delineation of the work all the functions are doing, so there's not a "surprise, this search also triggered a chunk allocation because of these X things were true." >> >>>> >>>> Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a >>>> RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use >>>> the same path for all chunk allocation. >>>> >>>> This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely >>>> separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, >>> >>> I don't get it. What do we gain by using FLUSH_LIMIT? >>> We allocated the new system chunk (if needed) and then marked the >>> space as reserved in the chunk reserve. >>> The chunk reserve is only used to track reserved space until the chunk >>> bree updates are done (either during chunk allocation/removal or for >>> the other paths that update the chunk btree). >>> So I don't see any advantage of using it instead of NO_FLUSH - we are >>> not supposed to trigger chunk allocation at that point, as we just did >>> it ourselves (and neither run delayed inodes). >>> I.e. the btrfs_block_rsv_add(() is never supposed to fail if >>> btrfs_create_chunk() succeeded. >>> >> >> Because I want to keep chunk allocation clearly in the realm of the >> ENOSPC handling, so we are consistent as possible. >> >> What I want is instead of burying some >> >> if (we dont have enough chunk space) >> do_system_chunk_allocation() >> >> in our chunk allocation paths, we instead make sure that everywhere >> we're doing chunk allocation we do a >> >> ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, >> FLUSH_WHATEVER); >> do our operation >> btrfs_block_rsv_release(); >> >> and then when we do btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes() in the >> btrfs_block_rsv_add() and we need to allocate a new chunk, it happens >> there, where all the other chunk allocation things happen. >> >> What we gain is consistency, allocating a system chunk happens via the >> same path that every other chunk allocation occurs, and it uses the same >> mechanisms that every other metadata allocation uses. Thanks, > > Ok, I see what you mean, and it should be possible after the changes > you have been doing to the space reservation code in the last couple > years or so. > But that is a separate change from the bug fix, it doesn't eliminate > the need to pre reserve space before doing the chunk btree updates for > those cases identified in the change log. > I'll do it, but obviously as a separate change. > Yup that's reasonable, thanks, Josef
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:31 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > On 10/11/21 2:22 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 6:42 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > >> > >> On 10/11/21 1:31 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > >>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > >>>>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > >>>>> > >>>>> When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in > >>>>> the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with > >>>>> another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. > >>>>> > >>>>> These contextes are the following: > >>>>> > >>>>> * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers > >>>>> that belong to the chunk btree; > >>>>> > >>>>> * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item > >>>>> to the chunk btree; > >>>>> > >>>>> * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item > >>>>> from the chunk btree; > >>>>> > >>>>> * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in > >>>>> the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond > >>>>> the new device size when shrinking a device. > >>>>> > >>>>> The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: > >>>>> > >>>>> 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the > >>>>> chunk mutex; > >>>>> > >>>>> 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent > >>>>> buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as > >>>>> well as its parent extent buffer; > >>>>> > >>>>> 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none > >>>>> of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because > >>>>> the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, > >>>>> task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to > >>>>> acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; > >>>>> > >>>>> 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert > >>>>> the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device > >>>>> items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer > >>>>> that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B > >>>>> is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, > >>>>> therefore resulting in a deadlock. > >>>>> > >>>>> One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: > >>>>> > >>>>> INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > >>>>> task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 > >>>>> Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space > >>>>> Call Trace: > >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > >>>>> rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 > >>>>> __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] > >>>>> __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] > >>>>> down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 > >>>>> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 > >>>>> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] > >>>>> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 > >>>>> btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 > >>>>> do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 > >>>>> flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 > >>>>> btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 > >>>>> process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 > >>>>> worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 > >>>>> kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 > >>>>> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 > >>>>> INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > >>>>> task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 > >>>>> Call Trace: > >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > >>>>> schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 > >>>>> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] > >>>>> __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 > >>>>> find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] > >>>>> find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 > >>>>> btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 > >>>>> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 > >>>>> __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 > >>>>> btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 > >>>>> relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] > >>>>> relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 > >>>>> relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 > >>>>> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 > >>>>> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 > >>>>> __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] > >>>>> btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 > >>>>> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 > >>>>> btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 > >>>>> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] > >>>>> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] > >>>>> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] > >>>>> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 > >>>>> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] > >>>>> do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 > >>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > >>>>> > >>>>> So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree > >>>>> and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove > >>>>> context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. > >>>>> > >>>>> Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> > >>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ > >>>>> Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > >>>> > >>>> A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff > >>>> > >>>> 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), > >>>> instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the > >>>> beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. > >>>> 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the > >>>> btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point > >>>> we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. > >>>> > >>>> So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation > >>>> dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's > >>>> hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have > >>>> a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the > >>>> beginning of search slot. > >>>> > >>>> Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead > >>>> we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a > >>>> btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. > >>> > >>> That was my initial idea, but I didn't find it better because it's > >>> easy to forget to make the reservation. > >>> I didn't like having to repeat it in several places either. > >>> > >>> If it makes things cleaner, I can change it back, no problem. > >>> > >> > >> I'd rather keep space reservation stuff separate so it's clear what > >> we're doing, instead of hiding it in btrfs_search_slot() where we have > >> to remember that we use it for chunk allocation there. > > > > Ok, that can be done. I still don't like it that much, but I don't > > hate it either. > > > > Yeah it's not awesome, but I want to have clear delineation of the work > all the functions are doing, so there's not a "surprise, this search > also triggered a chunk allocation because of these X things were true." > > >> > >>>> > >>>> Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a > >>>> RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use > >>>> the same path for all chunk allocation. > >>>> > >>>> This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely > >>>> separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, > >>> > >>> I don't get it. What do we gain by using FLUSH_LIMIT? > >>> We allocated the new system chunk (if needed) and then marked the > >>> space as reserved in the chunk reserve. > >>> The chunk reserve is only used to track reserved space until the chunk > >>> bree updates are done (either during chunk allocation/removal or for > >>> the other paths that update the chunk btree). > >>> So I don't see any advantage of using it instead of NO_FLUSH - we are > >>> not supposed to trigger chunk allocation at that point, as we just did > >>> it ourselves (and neither run delayed inodes). > >>> I.e. the btrfs_block_rsv_add(() is never supposed to fail if > >>> btrfs_create_chunk() succeeded. > >>> > >> > >> Because I want to keep chunk allocation clearly in the realm of the > >> ENOSPC handling, so we are consistent as possible. > >> > >> What I want is instead of burying some > >> > >> if (we dont have enough chunk space) > >> do_system_chunk_allocation() > >> > >> in our chunk allocation paths, we instead make sure that everywhere > >> we're doing chunk allocation we do a > >> > >> ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, > >> FLUSH_WHATEVER); > >> do our operation > >> btrfs_block_rsv_release(); > >> > >> and then when we do btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes() in the > >> btrfs_block_rsv_add() and we need to allocate a new chunk, it happens > >> there, where all the other chunk allocation things happen. > >> > >> What we gain is consistency, allocating a system chunk happens via the > >> same path that every other chunk allocation occurs, and it uses the same > >> mechanisms that every other metadata allocation uses. Thanks, > > > > Ok, I see what you mean, and it should be possible after the changes > > you have been doing to the space reservation code in the last couple > > years or so. > > But that is a separate change from the bug fix, it doesn't eliminate > > the need to pre reserve space before doing the chunk btree updates for > > those cases identified in the change log. > > I'll do it, but obviously as a separate change. > > > > Yup that's reasonable, thanks, So I just realized that would not work for two reasons. We still have to manually create the system chunk ourselves when reserving system space. In order to use only something like: ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT); We would have to do it before locking the chunk mutex, otherwise we would obviously deadlock when that triggers system chunk allocation through the async reclaim job. But by doing it before locking the chunk mutex, then if we have a bunch of tasks concurrently allocating data or metadata blocks groups we can end up over-reserving and eventually exhaust the system chunk array in the superblock, leading to a transaction abort - it brings back the problem that I tried to solve with: https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=eafa4fd0ad06074da8be4e28ff93b4dca9ffa407 from an internal report for powerpc (64K node size) using stress-ng, which I eventually had to revert later and fix differently with commit 79bd37120b149532af5b21953643ed74af69654f. Putting this problem of the system chunk array aside, by having the system chunk allocation triggered by btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk reserve, RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT), wouldn't we still deadlock even if we do it before locking the chunk mutex? I.e. the async reclaim job is allocating a data block group, enters chunk allocation, that tries to reserve system chunk space but there's not enough free system space so it creates a ticket to eventually allocate a system chunk - the reclaim job ends up waiting on a ticket it created itself during the data chunk allocation - a deadlock basically. Thanks. > > Josef >
On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 08:09:43PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:31 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > > > On 10/11/21 2:22 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 6:42 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > >> > > >> On 10/11/21 1:31 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > > >>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > > >>>>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in > > >>>>> the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with > > >>>>> another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> These contextes are the following: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers > > >>>>> that belong to the chunk btree; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item > > >>>>> to the chunk btree; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item > > >>>>> from the chunk btree; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in > > >>>>> the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond > > >>>>> the new device size when shrinking a device. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the > > >>>>> chunk mutex; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent > > >>>>> buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as > > >>>>> well as its parent extent buffer; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none > > >>>>> of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because > > >>>>> the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, > > >>>>> task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to > > >>>>> acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; > > >>>>> > > >>>>> 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert > > >>>>> the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device > > >>>>> items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer > > >>>>> that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B > > >>>>> is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, > > >>>>> therefore resulting in a deadlock. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > > >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > > >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > >>>>> task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 > > >>>>> Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space > > >>>>> Call Trace: > > >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > > >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > > >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > > >>>>> rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 > > >>>>> __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] > > >>>>> __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] > > >>>>> down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 > > >>>>> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 > > >>>>> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] > > >>>>> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 > > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] > > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 > > >>>>> btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 > > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 > > >>>>> do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] > > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 > > >>>>> flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 > > >>>>> btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 > > >>>>> process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 > > >>>>> worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 > > >>>>> kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 > > >>>>> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 > > >>>>> INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > > >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > > >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > >>>>> task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 > > >>>>> Call Trace: > > >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > > >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > > >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > > >>>>> schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 > > >>>>> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] > > >>>>> __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 > > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 > > >>>>> find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] > > >>>>> find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 > > >>>>> btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 > > >>>>> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 > > >>>>> __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 > > >>>>> btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 > > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 > > >>>>> relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] > > >>>>> relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 > > >>>>> relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 > > >>>>> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 > > >>>>> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 > > >>>>> __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] > > >>>>> btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 > > >>>>> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 > > >>>>> btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 > > >>>>> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] > > >>>>> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] > > >>>>> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] > > >>>>> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 > > >>>>> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] > > >>>>> do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 > > >>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > >>>>> > > >>>>> So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree > > >>>>> and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove > > >>>>> context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> > > >>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > >>>>> Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > >>>> > > >>>> A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff > > >>>> > > >>>> 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), > > >>>> instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the > > >>>> beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. > > >>>> 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the > > >>>> btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point > > >>>> we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. > > >>>> > > >>>> So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation > > >>>> dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's > > >>>> hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have > > >>>> a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the > > >>>> beginning of search slot. > > >>>> > > >>>> Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead > > >>>> we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a > > >>>> btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. > > >>> > > >>> That was my initial idea, but I didn't find it better because it's > > >>> easy to forget to make the reservation. > > >>> I didn't like having to repeat it in several places either. > > >>> > > >>> If it makes things cleaner, I can change it back, no problem. > > >>> > > >> > > >> I'd rather keep space reservation stuff separate so it's clear what > > >> we're doing, instead of hiding it in btrfs_search_slot() where we have > > >> to remember that we use it for chunk allocation there. > > > > > > Ok, that can be done. I still don't like it that much, but I don't > > > hate it either. > > > > > > > Yeah it's not awesome, but I want to have clear delineation of the work > > all the functions are doing, so there's not a "surprise, this search > > also triggered a chunk allocation because of these X things were true." > > > > >> > > >>>> > > >>>> Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a > > >>>> RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use > > >>>> the same path for all chunk allocation. > > >>>> > > >>>> This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely > > >>>> separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, > > >>> > > >>> I don't get it. What do we gain by using FLUSH_LIMIT? > > >>> We allocated the new system chunk (if needed) and then marked the > > >>> space as reserved in the chunk reserve. > > >>> The chunk reserve is only used to track reserved space until the chunk > > >>> bree updates are done (either during chunk allocation/removal or for > > >>> the other paths that update the chunk btree). > > >>> So I don't see any advantage of using it instead of NO_FLUSH - we are > > >>> not supposed to trigger chunk allocation at that point, as we just did > > >>> it ourselves (and neither run delayed inodes). > > >>> I.e. the btrfs_block_rsv_add(() is never supposed to fail if > > >>> btrfs_create_chunk() succeeded. > > >>> > > >> > > >> Because I want to keep chunk allocation clearly in the realm of the > > >> ENOSPC handling, so we are consistent as possible. > > >> > > >> What I want is instead of burying some > > >> > > >> if (we dont have enough chunk space) > > >> do_system_chunk_allocation() > > >> > > >> in our chunk allocation paths, we instead make sure that everywhere > > >> we're doing chunk allocation we do a > > >> > > >> ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, > > >> FLUSH_WHATEVER); > > >> do our operation > > >> btrfs_block_rsv_release(); > > >> > > >> and then when we do btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes() in the > > >> btrfs_block_rsv_add() and we need to allocate a new chunk, it happens > > >> there, where all the other chunk allocation things happen. > > >> > > >> What we gain is consistency, allocating a system chunk happens via the > > >> same path that every other chunk allocation occurs, and it uses the same > > >> mechanisms that every other metadata allocation uses. Thanks, > > > > > > Ok, I see what you mean, and it should be possible after the changes > > > you have been doing to the space reservation code in the last couple > > > years or so. > > > But that is a separate change from the bug fix, it doesn't eliminate > > > the need to pre reserve space before doing the chunk btree updates for > > > those cases identified in the change log. > > > I'll do it, but obviously as a separate change. > > > > > > > Yup that's reasonable, thanks, > > So I just realized that would not work for two reasons. > We still have to manually create the system chunk ourselves when > reserving system space. > > In order to use only something like: > > ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, > BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT); > > We would have to do it before locking the chunk mutex, otherwise we > would obviously deadlock when that triggers system chunk allocation > through the async reclaim job. > > But by doing it before locking the chunk mutex, then if we have a > bunch of tasks concurrently allocating data or metadata blocks groups > we can end up over-reserving and eventually exhaust the system chunk > array in the superblock, leading to a transaction abort - it brings > back the problem that I tried to solve with: > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=eafa4fd0ad06074da8be4e28ff93b4dca9ffa407 > > from an internal report for powerpc (64K node size) using stress-ng, > which I eventually had to revert later and fix differently with commit > 79bd37120b149532af5b21953643ed74af69654f. > > Putting this problem of the system chunk array aside, by having the > system chunk allocation triggered by btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk > reserve, RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT), wouldn't we still deadlock even if we > do it before locking the chunk mutex? > I.e. the async reclaim job is allocating a data block group, enters > chunk allocation, that tries to reserve system chunk space but there's > not enough free system space so it creates a ticket to eventually > allocate a system chunk - the reclaim job ends up waiting on a ticket > it created itself during the data chunk allocation - a deadlock > basically. > Ugh yeah you're right. Let's just go with your solution, we can revisit this when I'm less drunk. Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> Thanks, Josef
On Tue, Oct 12, 2021 at 10:34 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 08:09:43PM +0100, Filipe Manana wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 7:31 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > > > > > On 10/11/21 2:22 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 6:42 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> On 10/11/21 1:31 PM, Filipe Manana wrote: > > > >>> On Mon, Oct 11, 2021 at 5:05 PM Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> wrote: > > > >>>> > > > >>>> On Fri, Oct 08, 2021 at 04:10:34PM +0100, fdmanana@kernel.org wrote: > > > >>>>> From: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> When a task is doing some modification to the chunk btree and it is not in > > > >>>>> the context of a chunk allocation or a chunk removal, it can deadlock with > > > >>>>> another task that is currently allocating a new data or metadata chunk. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> These contextes are the following: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * When relocating a system chunk, when we need to COW the extent buffers > > > >>>>> that belong to the chunk btree; > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * When adding a new device (ioctl), where we need to add a new device item > > > >>>>> to the chunk btree; > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * When removing a device (ioctl), where we need to remove a device item > > > >>>>> from the chunk btree; > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> * When resizing a device (ioctl), where we need to update a device item in > > > >>>>> the chunk btree and may need to relocate a system chunk that lies beyond > > > >>>>> the new device size when shrinking a device. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> The problem happens due to a sequence of steps like the following: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 1) Task A starts a data or metadata chunk allocation and it locks the > > > >>>>> chunk mutex; > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 2) Task B is relocating a system chunk, and when it needs to COW an extent > > > >>>>> buffer of the chunk btree, it has locked both that extent buffer as > > > >>>>> well as its parent extent buffer; > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 3) Since there is not enough available system space, either because none > > > >>>>> of the existing system block groups have enough free space or because > > > >>>>> the only one with enough free space is in RO mode due to the relocation, > > > >>>>> task B triggers a new system chunk allocation. It blocks when trying to > > > >>>>> acquire the chunk mutex, currently held by task A; > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> 4) Task A enters btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(), in order to insert > > > >>>>> the new chunk item into the chunk btree and update the existing device > > > >>>>> items there. But in order to do that, it has to lock the extent buffer > > > >>>>> that task B locked at step 2, or its parent extent buffer, but task B > > > >>>>> is waiting on the chunk mutex, which is currently locked by task A, > > > >>>>> therefore resulting in a deadlock. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> One example report when the deadlock happens with system chunk relocation: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> INFO: task kworker/u9:5:546 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > > > >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > > > >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > > >>>>> task:kworker/u9:5 state:D stack:25936 pid: 546 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000 > > > >>>>> Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space > > > >>>>> Call Trace: > > > >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > > > >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > > > >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > > > >>>>> rwsem_down_read_slowpath+0x4ee/0x9d0 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:993 > > > >>>>> __down_read_common kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1214 [inline] > > > >>>>> __down_read kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1223 [inline] > > > >>>>> down_read_nested+0xe6/0x440 kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1590 > > > >>>>> __btrfs_tree_read_lock+0x31/0x350 fs/btrfs/locking.c:47 > > > >>>>> btrfs_tree_read_lock fs/btrfs/locking.c:54 [inline] > > > >>>>> btrfs_read_lock_root_node+0x8a/0x320 fs/btrfs/locking.c:191 > > > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot_get_root fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1623 [inline] > > > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x13b4/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1728 > > > >>>>> btrfs_update_device+0x11f/0x500 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:2794 > > > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item+0x34d/0xea0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:5504 > > > >>>>> do_chunk_alloc fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3408 [inline] > > > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x84d/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3653 > > > >>>>> flush_space+0x54e/0xd80 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:670 > > > >>>>> btrfs_async_reclaim_metadata_space+0x396/0xa90 fs/btrfs/space-info.c:953 > > > >>>>> process_one_work+0x9df/0x16d0 kernel/workqueue.c:2297 > > > >>>>> worker_thread+0x90/0xed0 kernel/workqueue.c:2444 > > > >>>>> kthread+0x3e5/0x4d0 kernel/kthread.c:319 > > > >>>>> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30 arch/x86/entry/entry_64.S:295 > > > >>>>> INFO: task syz-executor:9107 blocked for more than 143 seconds. > > > >>>>> Not tainted 5.15.0-rc3+ #1 > > > >>>>> "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. > > > >>>>> task:syz-executor state:D stack:23200 pid: 9107 ppid: 7792 flags:0x00004004 > > > >>>>> Call Trace: > > > >>>>> context_switch kernel/sched/core.c:4940 [inline] > > > >>>>> __schedule+0xcd9/0x2530 kernel/sched/core.c:6287 > > > >>>>> schedule+0xd3/0x270 kernel/sched/core.c:6366 > > > >>>>> schedule_preempt_disabled+0xf/0x20 kernel/sched/core.c:6425 > > > >>>>> __mutex_lock_common kernel/locking/mutex.c:669 [inline] > > > >>>>> __mutex_lock+0xc96/0x1680 kernel/locking/mutex.c:729 > > > >>>>> btrfs_chunk_alloc+0x31a/0xf50 fs/btrfs/block-group.c:3631 > > > >>>>> find_free_extent_update_loop fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:3986 [inline] > > > >>>>> find_free_extent+0x25cb/0x3a30 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4335 > > > >>>>> btrfs_reserve_extent+0x1f1/0x500 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4415 > > > >>>>> btrfs_alloc_tree_block+0x203/0x1120 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c:4813 > > > >>>>> __btrfs_cow_block+0x412/0x1620 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:415 > > > >>>>> btrfs_cow_block+0x2f6/0x8c0 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:570 > > > >>>>> btrfs_search_slot+0x1094/0x2140 fs/btrfs/ctree.c:1768 > > > >>>>> relocate_tree_block fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2694 [inline] > > > >>>>> relocate_tree_blocks+0xf73/0x1770 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:2757 > > > >>>>> relocate_block_group+0x47e/0xc70 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:3673 > > > >>>>> btrfs_relocate_block_group+0x48a/0xc60 fs/btrfs/relocation.c:4070 > > > >>>>> btrfs_relocate_chunk+0x96/0x280 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3181 > > > >>>>> __btrfs_balance fs/btrfs/volumes.c:3911 [inline] > > > >>>>> btrfs_balance+0x1f03/0x3cd0 fs/btrfs/volumes.c:4301 > > > >>>>> btrfs_ioctl_balance+0x61e/0x800 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4137 > > > >>>>> btrfs_ioctl+0x39ea/0x7b70 fs/btrfs/ioctl.c:4949 > > > >>>>> vfs_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:51 [inline] > > > >>>>> __do_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:874 [inline] > > > >>>>> __se_sys_ioctl fs/ioctl.c:860 [inline] > > > >>>>> __x64_sys_ioctl+0x193/0x200 fs/ioctl.c:860 > > > >>>>> do_syscall_x64 arch/x86/entry/common.c:50 [inline] > > > >>>>> do_syscall_64+0x35/0xb0 arch/x86/entry/common.c:80 > > > >>>>> entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> So fix this by making sure that whenever we try to modify the chunk btree > > > >>>>> and we are neither in a chunk allocation context nor in a chunk remove > > > >>>>> context, we reserve system space before modifying the chunk btree. > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Reported-by: Hao Sun <sunhao.th@gmail.com> > > > >>>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/CACkBjsax51i4mu6C0C3vJqQN3NR_iVuucoeG3U1HXjrgzn5FFQ@mail.gmail.com/ > > > >>>>> Fixes: 79bd37120b1495 ("btrfs: rework chunk allocation to avoid exhaustion of the system chunk array") > > > >>>>> Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <fdmanana@suse.com> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> A few things, because I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around this stuff > > > >>>> > > > >>>> 1) We're no longer allowing SYSTEM chunk allocations via btrfs_chunk_alloc(), > > > >>>> instead it's only via the reserve_chunk_space(). That is triggered at the > > > >>>> beginning of btrfs_search_slot() when we go to modify the chunk root. > > > >>>> 2) We do this because we would normally trigger it when we do the > > > >>>> btrfs_use_block_rsv() when we go to modify the chunk tree, and at that point > > > >>>> we're holding chunk root locks and thus run into the describe deadlock. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> So what you're wanting to do is to force us to do the enospc chunk allocation > > > >>>> dance prior to searching down the chunk root. This makes sense. However it's > > > >>>> hard for me to wrap my head around the new rules for this stuff, and now we have > > > >>>> a global "check to see if we need to reserve space for the chunk root" at the > > > >>>> beginning of search slot. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Doing at the btrfs_use_block_rsv() part isn't awesome either. What if instead > > > >>>> we just added a btrfs_reserve_chunk_space() everywhere we do a > > > >>>> btrfs_search_slot() on the chunk_root as there are not many of them. > > > >>> > > > >>> That was my initial idea, but I didn't find it better because it's > > > >>> easy to forget to make the reservation. > > > >>> I didn't like having to repeat it in several places either. > > > >>> > > > >>> If it makes things cleaner, I can change it back, no problem. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> I'd rather keep space reservation stuff separate so it's clear what > > > >> we're doing, instead of hiding it in btrfs_search_slot() where we have > > > >> to remember that we use it for chunk allocation there. > > > > > > > > Ok, that can be done. I still don't like it that much, but I don't > > > > hate it either. > > > > > > > > > > Yeah it's not awesome, but I want to have clear delineation of the work > > > all the functions are doing, so there's not a "surprise, this search > > > also triggered a chunk allocation because of these X things were true." > > > > > > >> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Then we use BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT instead of NO_FLUSH, or hell we add a > > > >>>> RESERVE_FLUSH_CHUNK that only does the chunk allocation stage. Then we can use > > > >>>> the same path for all chunk allocation. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> This way everybody still uses the same paths and we don't have a completely > > > >>>> separate path for system chunk modifications. Thanks, > > > >>> > > > >>> I don't get it. What do we gain by using FLUSH_LIMIT? > > > >>> We allocated the new system chunk (if needed) and then marked the > > > >>> space as reserved in the chunk reserve. > > > >>> The chunk reserve is only used to track reserved space until the chunk > > > >>> bree updates are done (either during chunk allocation/removal or for > > > >>> the other paths that update the chunk btree). > > > >>> So I don't see any advantage of using it instead of NO_FLUSH - we are > > > >>> not supposed to trigger chunk allocation at that point, as we just did > > > >>> it ourselves (and neither run delayed inodes). > > > >>> I.e. the btrfs_block_rsv_add(() is never supposed to fail if > > > >>> btrfs_create_chunk() succeeded. > > > >>> > > > >> > > > >> Because I want to keep chunk allocation clearly in the realm of the > > > >> ENOSPC handling, so we are consistent as possible. > > > >> > > > >> What I want is instead of burying some > > > >> > > > >> if (we dont have enough chunk space) > > > >> do_system_chunk_allocation() > > > >> > > > >> in our chunk allocation paths, we instead make sure that everywhere > > > >> we're doing chunk allocation we do a > > > >> > > > >> ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, > > > >> FLUSH_WHATEVER); > > > >> do our operation > > > >> btrfs_block_rsv_release(); > > > >> > > > >> and then when we do btrfs_reserve_metadata_bytes() in the > > > >> btrfs_block_rsv_add() and we need to allocate a new chunk, it happens > > > >> there, where all the other chunk allocation things happen. > > > >> > > > >> What we gain is consistency, allocating a system chunk happens via the > > > >> same path that every other chunk allocation occurs, and it uses the same > > > >> mechanisms that every other metadata allocation uses. Thanks, > > > > > > > > Ok, I see what you mean, and it should be possible after the changes > > > > you have been doing to the space reservation code in the last couple > > > > years or so. > > > > But that is a separate change from the bug fix, it doesn't eliminate > > > > the need to pre reserve space before doing the chunk btree updates for > > > > those cases identified in the change log. > > > > I'll do it, but obviously as a separate change. > > > > > > > > > > Yup that's reasonable, thanks, > > > > So I just realized that would not work for two reasons. > > We still have to manually create the system chunk ourselves when > > reserving system space. > > > > In order to use only something like: > > > > ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk_root, chunk_block_rsv, num_bytes, > > BTRFS_RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT); > > > > We would have to do it before locking the chunk mutex, otherwise we > > would obviously deadlock when that triggers system chunk allocation > > through the async reclaim job. > > > > But by doing it before locking the chunk mutex, then if we have a > > bunch of tasks concurrently allocating data or metadata blocks groups > > we can end up over-reserving and eventually exhaust the system chunk > > array in the superblock, leading to a transaction abort - it brings > > back the problem that I tried to solve with: > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=eafa4fd0ad06074da8be4e28ff93b4dca9ffa407 > > > > from an internal report for powerpc (64K node size) using stress-ng, > > which I eventually had to revert later and fix differently with commit > > 79bd37120b149532af5b21953643ed74af69654f. > > > > Putting this problem of the system chunk array aside, by having the > > system chunk allocation triggered by btrfs_block_rsv_add(chunk > > reserve, RESERVE_FLUSH_LIMIT), wouldn't we still deadlock even if we > > do it before locking the chunk mutex? > > I.e. the async reclaim job is allocating a data block group, enters > > chunk allocation, that tries to reserve system chunk space but there's > > not enough free system space so it creates a ticket to eventually > > allocate a system chunk - the reclaim job ends up waiting on a ticket > > it created itself during the data chunk allocation - a deadlock > > basically. > > > > Ugh yeah you're right. Let's just go with your solution, we can revisit this > when I'm less drunk. Well, I still sent a v3 moving the pre-allocation of system space out of btrfs_search_slot() and into the few paths that update the chunk btree. I also updated a couple comments that were no longer true. Thanks. > > Reviewed-by: Josef Bacik <josef@toxicpanda.com> > > Thanks, > > Josef
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c index 46fdef7bbe20..8ed36d57da31 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c @@ -2373,6 +2373,7 @@ void btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans) struct btrfs_block_group *block_group; int ret = 0; + trans->creating_pending_block_groups = true; while (!list_empty(&trans->new_bgs)) { int index; @@ -2414,6 +2415,7 @@ void btrfs_create_pending_block_groups(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans) btrfs_delayed_refs_rsv_release(fs_info, 1); list_del_init(&block_group->bg_list); } + trans->creating_pending_block_groups = false; btrfs_trans_release_chunk_metadata(trans); } @@ -3403,25 +3405,6 @@ static int do_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 flags) goto out; } - /* - * If this is a system chunk allocation then stop right here and do not - * add the chunk item to the chunk btree. This is to prevent a deadlock - * because this system chunk allocation can be triggered while COWing - * some extent buffer of the chunk btree and while holding a lock on a - * parent extent buffer, in which case attempting to insert the chunk - * item (or update the device item) would result in a deadlock on that - * parent extent buffer. In this case defer the chunk btree updates to - * the second phase of chunk allocation and keep our reservation until - * the second phase completes. - * - * This is a rare case and can only be triggered by the very few cases - * we have where we need to touch the chunk btree outside chunk allocation - * and chunk removal. These cases are basically adding a device, removing - * a device or resizing a device. - */ - if (flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_SYSTEM) - return 0; - ret = btrfs_chunk_alloc_add_chunk_item(trans, bg); /* * Normally we are not expected to fail with -ENOSPC here, since we have @@ -3598,11 +3581,27 @@ int btrfs_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 flags, if (trans->allocating_chunk) return -ENOSPC; /* - * If we are removing a chunk, don't re-enter or we would deadlock. - * System space reservation and system chunk allocation is done by the - * chunk remove operation (btrfs_remove_chunk()). + * Allocation of system chunks can not happen through this path, as we + * could end up in a deadlock if we are allocating a data or metadata + * chunk and there is another task modifying the chunk btree + * + * This is because while we are holding the chunk mutex, we will attempt + * to add the new chunk item to the chunk btree or update an existing + * device item in the chunk btree, while the other task that is modifying + * the chunk btree is attempting to COW an extent buffer while holding a + * lock on it and on its parent - if the COW operation triggers a system + * chunk allocation, then we can deadlock because we are holding the + * chunk mutex and we may need to access that extent buffer or its parent + * in order to add the chunk item or update a device item. + * + * Tasks that want to modify the chunk tree should reserve system space + * before updating the chunk btree, by calling either + * btrfs_reserve_chunk_space_for_cow() or check_system_chunk(). + * It's possible that after a task reserves the space, it still ends up + * here - this happens in the cases described above at do_chunk_alloc(). + * The task will have to either retry or fail. */ - if (trans->removing_chunk) + if (flags & BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_SYSTEM) return -ENOSPC; space_info = btrfs_find_space_info(fs_info, flags); @@ -3701,17 +3700,14 @@ static u64 get_profile_num_devs(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 type) return num_dev; } -/* - * Reserve space in the system space for allocating or removing a chunk - */ -void check_system_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 type) +static void reserve_chunk_space(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, + u64 bytes, + u64 type) { struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = trans->fs_info; struct btrfs_space_info *info; u64 left; - u64 thresh; int ret = 0; - u64 num_devs; /* * Needed because we can end up allocating a system chunk and for an @@ -3724,19 +3720,13 @@ void check_system_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 type) left = info->total_bytes - btrfs_space_info_used(info, true); spin_unlock(&info->lock); - num_devs = get_profile_num_devs(fs_info, type); - - /* num_devs device items to update and 1 chunk item to add or remove */ - thresh = btrfs_calc_metadata_size(fs_info, num_devs) + - btrfs_calc_insert_metadata_size(fs_info, 1); - - if (left < thresh && btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, ENOSPC_DEBUG)) { + if (left < bytes && btrfs_test_opt(fs_info, ENOSPC_DEBUG)) { btrfs_info(fs_info, "left=%llu, need=%llu, flags=%llu", - left, thresh, type); + left, bytes, type); btrfs_dump_space_info(fs_info, info, 0, 0); } - if (left < thresh) { + if (left < bytes) { u64 flags = btrfs_system_alloc_profile(fs_info); struct btrfs_block_group *bg; @@ -3746,10 +3736,10 @@ void check_system_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 type) * the paths we visit in the chunk tree (they were already COWed * or created in the current transaction for example). * - * Also, if our caller is allocating a system chunk, do not + * Also, if we are being called to reserve chunk space, do not * attempt to insert the chunk item in the chunk btree, as we - * could deadlock on an extent buffer since our caller may be - * COWing an extent buffer from the chunk btree. + * could deadlock on the chunk mutex if we need to COW an extent + * buffer of the chunk btree. */ bg = btrfs_create_chunk(trans, flags); if (IS_ERR(bg)) { @@ -3768,12 +3758,60 @@ void check_system_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 type) if (!ret) { ret = btrfs_block_rsv_add(fs_info->chunk_root, &fs_info->chunk_block_rsv, - thresh, BTRFS_RESERVE_NO_FLUSH); + bytes, BTRFS_RESERVE_NO_FLUSH); if (!ret) - trans->chunk_bytes_reserved += thresh; + trans->chunk_bytes_reserved += bytes; } } +/* + * Reserve space in the system space for allocating or removing a chunk. + * The caller must be holding fs_info->chunk_mutex. + */ +void check_system_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 type) +{ + struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = trans->fs_info; + const u64 num_devs = get_profile_num_devs(fs_info, type); + u64 bytes; + + /* num_devs device items to update and 1 chunk item to add or remove. */ + bytes = btrfs_calc_metadata_size(fs_info, num_devs) + + btrfs_calc_insert_metadata_size(fs_info, 1); + + reserve_chunk_space(trans, bytes, type); +} + +/* + * Reserve space in the system space, if needed, for doing a modification to the + * chunk btree. + * + * This is used in a context where we need to update the chunk btree outside + * block group allocation and removal, to avoid a deadlock with a concurrent + * task that is allocating a metadata or data block group and therefore needs to + * update the chunk btree while holding the chunk mutex. After the update to the + * chunk btree is done, btrfs_trans_release_chunk_metadata() should be called. + * + * @trans: A transaction handle. + * @is_item_insertion: Indicate if the modification is for inserting a new item + * in the chunk btree or if it's for the deletion or update + * of an existing item. + */ +void btrfs_reserve_chunk_btree_space(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, + bool is_item_insertion) +{ + struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info = trans->fs_info; + u64 bytes; + + if (is_item_insertion) + bytes = btrfs_calc_insert_metadata_size(fs_info, 1); + else + bytes = btrfs_calc_metadata_size(fs_info, 1); + + mutex_lock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); + reserve_chunk_space(trans, bytes, BTRFS_BLOCK_GROUP_SYSTEM); + mutex_unlock(&fs_info->chunk_mutex); +} + void btrfs_put_block_group_cache(struct btrfs_fs_info *info) { struct btrfs_block_group *block_group; diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.h b/fs/btrfs/block-group.h index f751b802b173..5e8f8aaabadc 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.h @@ -293,6 +293,8 @@ int btrfs_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 flags, enum btrfs_chunk_alloc_enum force); int btrfs_force_chunk_alloc(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, u64 type); void check_system_chunk(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, const u64 type); +void btrfs_reserve_chunk_btree_space(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, + bool is_item_insertion); u64 btrfs_get_alloc_profile(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 orig_flags); void btrfs_put_block_group_cache(struct btrfs_fs_info *info); int btrfs_free_block_groups(struct btrfs_fs_info *info); diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c index 74c8e18f3720..b897c79a74b9 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.c @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ #include <linux/rbtree.h> #include <linux/mm.h> #include "ctree.h" +#include "block-group.h" #include "disk-io.h" #include "transaction.h" #include "print-tree.h" @@ -1693,6 +1694,7 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root *root, u8 lowest_level = 0; int min_write_lock_level; int prev_cmp; + bool reserved_chunk_space = false; lowest_level = p->lowest_level; WARN_ON(lowest_level && ins_len > 0); @@ -1723,6 +1725,14 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root *root, min_write_lock_level = write_lock_level; + if (cow && root == root->fs_info->chunk_root && + !trans->allocating_chunk && + !trans->removing_chunk && + !trans->creating_pending_block_groups) { + btrfs_reserve_chunk_btree_space(trans, (ins_len > 0)); + reserved_chunk_space = true; + } + again: prev_cmp = -1; b = btrfs_search_slot_get_root(root, p, write_lock_level); @@ -1917,6 +1927,10 @@ int btrfs_search_slot(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans, struct btrfs_root *root, done: if (ret < 0 && !p->skip_release_on_error) btrfs_release_path(p); + + if (reserved_chunk_space) + btrfs_trans_release_chunk_metadata(trans); + return ret; } ALLOW_ERROR_INJECTION(btrfs_search_slot, ERRNO); diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.h b/fs/btrfs/transaction.h index ba45065f9451..fb1163c09040 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.h +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.h @@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ struct btrfs_trans_handle { bool adding_csums; bool allocating_chunk; bool removing_chunk; + bool creating_pending_block_groups; bool reloc_reserved; bool in_fsync; struct btrfs_root *root;