lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [May]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] fs,xfs: fix missed wakeup on l_flush_wait
On Wed, May 08, 2019 at 10:08:59AM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> On Wed, 2019-05-08 at 07:22 +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Tue, May 07, 2019 at 01:05:28PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > > The code in xlog_wait uses the spinlock to make adding the task to
> > > the wait queue, and setting the task state to UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > > atomic
> > > with respect to the waker.
> > >
> > > Doing the wakeup after releasing the spinlock opens up the
> > > following
> > > race condition:
> > >
> > > - add task to wait queue
> > >
> > > - wake up task
> > >
> > > - set task state to UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> > >
> > > Simply moving the spin_unlock to after the wake_up_all results
> > > in the waker not being able to see a task on the waitqueue before
> > > it has set its state to UNINTERRUPTIBLE.
> >
> > Yup, seems like an issue. Good find, Rik.
> >
> > So, what problem is this actually fixing? Was it noticed by
> > inspection, or is it actually manifesting on production machines?
> > If it is manifesting IRL, what are the symptoms (e.g. hang running
> > out of log space?) and do you have a test case or any way to
> > exercise it easily?
>
> Chris spotted a hung kworker task, in UNINTERRUPTIBLE
> state, but with an empty wait queue. This does not seem
> like something that is easily reproducible.

Yeah, I just read that, not something we can trigger with a
regression test :P

> > And, FWIW, did you check all the other xlog_wait() users for the
> > same problem?
>
> I did not, but am looking now. The xlog_wait code itself
> is fine, but it seems there are a few other wakers that
> are doing the wakeup after releasing the lock.
>
> It looks like xfs_log_force_umount() and the other wakeup
> in xlog_state_do_callback() suffer from the same issue.

Hmmm, the first wakeup in xsdc is this one, right:

/* wake up threads waiting in xfs_log_force() */
wake_up_all(&iclog->ic_force_wait);

At the end of the iclog iteration loop? That one is under the
ic_loglock - the lock is dropped to run callbacks, then picked up
again once the callbacks are done and before the ic_callback_lock is
dropped (about 10 lines above the wakeup). So unless I'm missing
something (like enough coffee!) that one look fine.

.....

> I am not sure about xfs_log_force_umount(). Could the unlock
> be moved to after the wake_up_all, or does that create lock
> ordering issues with the xlog_grant_head_wake_all calls?
> Could a simple lock + unlock of log->l_icloglock around the
> wake_up_all do the trick, or is there some other state that
> also needs to stay locked?

Need to be careful which lock is used with which wait queue :)

This one is waking the the xc_commit_wait queue (CIL push commit
sequencing wait queue), which is protected by the
log->l_cilp->xc_push_lock. That should nest jsut fine inside any
locks we are holding at this point, so you should just be able to
wrap it. It's not a common code path, though, it'll only hit this
code when the filesystem is already considered to be in an
unrecoverable state.

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-05-08 23:33    [W:0.110 / U:2.484 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site