lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [4]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH 1/2] f2fs: avoid deadlock caused by lock order of page and lock_op
On 07/05, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2017/7/1 22:27, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/01, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2017/7/1 15:28, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 06/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>>>
> >>>> On 2017/6/26 22:54, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> Hi Chao,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On 06/26, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> Hi Jaegeuk,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 2017/6/25 0:25, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> - punch_hole
> >>>>>>> - fill_zero
> >>>>>>> - f2fs_lock_op
> >>>>>>> - get_new_data_page
> >>>>>>> - lock_page
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - f2fs_write_data_pages
> >>>>>>> - lock_page
> >>>>>>> - do_write_data_page
> >>>>>>> - f2fs_lock_op
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Good catch!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> With this implementation, page writeback can fail due to concurrent checkpoint,
> >>>>>> this will make fsync/atomic_commit which trigger synchronous write failed randomly.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How about unifying the lock order in punch_hole as one in writepages for regular
> >>>>>> inode? We can add one more parameter in get_new_data_page to indicate whether
> >>>>>> callee needs to lock cp_rwsem.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Currently, there would be some places to keep cp_rwsem -> page.lock, which seems
> >>>>> not simple to change the lock order with page.lock -> cp_rwsem. IMO, we can retry
> >>>>> flushing data in f2fs_sync_file, once it gets -EAGAIN.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Any thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> What about adding inode_lock in f2fs_sync_file to exclude other
> >>>> foreground operation which have reversed lock order? Atomic_commit is OK
> >>>> since it has inode_lock in its path.
> >>>
> >>> I have concerned about performance regression, if we do that.
> >>
> >> I think fsync vs write or fsync vs fsync scenarios are unusual, so is
> >> there any usecase?
> >
> > Well, that'd be common to call multiple fsync calls at the same time.
> > Like dbench or tiotest?
>
> Do you have test numbers of dbench/tiotest with inode:lock in fsync?

No, do we need?

>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 5 +++--
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> index 7d3af48d34a9..9141bd19a902 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -1404,8 +1404,9 @@ int do_write_data_page(struct f2fs_io_info *fio)
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>> }
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if (fio->need_lock == LOCK_REQ)
> >>>>>>> - f2fs_lock_op(fio->sbi);
> >>>>>>> + /* Deadlock due to between page->lock and f2fs_lock_op */
> >>>>>>> + if (fio->need_lock == LOCK_REQ && !f2fs_trylock_op(fio->sbi))
> >>>>>>> + return -EAGAIN;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> err = get_dnode_of_data(&dn, page->index, LOOKUP_NODE);
> >>>>>>> if (err)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> >>>>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
> >>>>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> >>>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
> >>>>>

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-05 05:29    [W:0.247 / U:0.972 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site