On Mon, 2008-05-05 at 19:06 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
quoted text
> On Thu 01-05-08 08:16:21, Badari Pulavarty wrote:
> > Hi Andrew & Jan,
> > 
> > I was able to reproduce the customer problem involving DIO
> > (invalidate_inode_pages2) problem by writing simple testcase
> > to keep writing to a file using buffered writes and DIO writes
> > forever in a loop. I see DIO writes fail with -EIO.
> > 
> > After a long debug, found 2 cases how this could happen.
> > These are race conditions with journal_try_to_free_buffers()
> > and journal_commit_transaction().
> > 
> > 1) journal_submit_data_buffers() tries to get bh_state lock. If
> > try lock fails, it drops the j_list_lock and sleeps for
> > bh_state lock, while holding a reference on the buffer.
> > In the meanwhile, journal_try_to_free_buffers() can clean up the
> > journal head could call try_to_free_buffers(). try_to_free_buffers()
> > would fail due to the reference held by journal_submit_data_buffers()
> > - which in turn causes failues for DIO (invalidate_inode_pages2()).
> > 
> > 2) When the buffer is on t_locked_list waiting for IO to finish,
> > we hold a reference and give up the cpu, if we can't get
> > bh_state lock. This causes try_to_free_buffers() to fail.
> > 
> > Fix is to drop the reference on the buffer if we can't get
> > bh_state lock, give up the cpu and re-try the whole operation -
> > instead of waiting for the vh_state lock.
> > 
> > Does this look like a resonable fix ?
>   As Mingming pointed out there are few other places where we could hold
> the bh reference. Note also that we accumulate references to buffers in the
> wbuf[] list and we need that for submit_bh() which consumes one bh
> reference. Generally, it seems to me as a too fragile and impractical
> rule "nobody can hold bh reference when not holding page lock" which is
> basically what it comes down to if you really want to be sure that
> journal_try_to_free_buffers() succeeds. And also note that in principle
> there are other places which hold references to buffers without holding the
> page lock - for example writepage() in ordered mode (although this one is
> in practice hardly triggerable). So how we could fix at least the races
> with commit code is to implement launder_page() callback for ext3/4 which
> would wait for the previous transaction commit in case the page has buffers
> that are part of that commit (I don't want this logic in
> journal_try_to_free_buffers() as that is called also on memory-reclaim
> path, but journal_launder_page() is fine with me). 

I am not sure how we are going to gurantee that by the time
journal_try_to_free_buffers() get called, the page has buffers are not
as part of the current transaction commit(which could be different than
the one we waited in ext3_launder_page())?  

It seems more realistic to fix the races one by one to me.

There is still a window that journal_submit_data_buffers() already
removed the jh from the bh (when found the buffers are already being
synced), but still keep a reference to the buffer head.
journal_try_to_free_buffers() could be called. In that case
try_to_free_buffers() will be called since there is no jh related to
this buffer, and failed due to journal_submit_data_buffers() hasn't
finish the cleanup business yet. 

For this new race, we could just grab the j_list_lock when re-try
try_to_free_buffers() to force waiting for journal_commit_transaction()
to finish it flush work. But not sure if this is acceptable approach?

Patch like this? Comments?

Mingming

---------------------------------------------------------------------
There are a few cases direct IO could race with kjournal flushing
data buffers which could result direct IO return EIO error.

1) journal_submit_data_buffers() tries to get bh_state lock. If
try lock fails, it drops the j_list_lock and sleeps for
bh_state lock, while holding a reference on the buffer.
In the meanwhile, journal_try_to_free_buffers() can clean up the
journal head could call try_to_free_buffers(). try_to_free_buffers()
would fail due to the reference held by journal_submit_data_buffers()
- which in turn causes failues for DIO (invalidate_inode_pages2()).

2) When the buffer is on t_locked_list waiting for IO to finish,
we hold a reference and give up the cpu, if we can't get
bh_state lock. This causes try_to_free_buffers() to fail.

3) when journal_submit_data_buffers() saw the buffer is dirty but failed
to lock the buffer bh1, journal_submit_data_buffers() released the
j_list_lock and submit other buffers collected from previous check, with
the reference to bh1 still hold. During this time
journal_try_to_free_buffers() could clean up the journal head of bh1 and
remove it from the t_syncdata_list. Then try_to_free_buffers() would
fail because the reference held by journal_submit_data_buffers()

4) journal_submit_data_buffers() already removed the jh from the bh
(when found the buffers are already being synced), but still keep a
reference to the buffer head. journal_try_to_free_buffers() could be
called. In that case try_to_free_buffers() will be called since there is
no jh related to this buffer, and failed due to
journal_submit_data_buffers() hasn't finish the cleanup business yet. 

Fix for first three races is to drop the reference on the buffer head
 when release the j_list_lock,
give up the cpu and re-try the whole operation. 

This patch also fixes the race that data buffers has been
flushed to disk and journal head is cleard
by journal_submit_data_buffers() but did not get a chance to release
 buffer head reference before the journal_try_to_free_buffers() kicked in.


Signed-off-by: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@us.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <mcao@us.ibm.com>
---
 fs/jbd/commit.c      |   21 ++++++++++++++++-----
 fs/jbd/transaction.c |   13 +++++++++++++
 2 files changed, 29 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

Index: linux-2.6.26-rc1/fs/jbd/commit.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.26-rc1.orig/fs/jbd/commit.c	2008-05-03 11:59:44.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.26-rc1/fs/jbd/commit.c	2008-05-09 14:44:36.000000000 -0700
@@ -79,12 +79,16 @@ nope:
 
 /*
  * Try to acquire jbd_lock_bh_state() against the buffer, when j_list_lock is
- * held.  For ranking reasons we must trylock.  If we lose, schedule away and
+ * held.  For ranking reasons we must trylock.  If we lose,  unlock the buffer
+ * if needed, drop the reference on the buffer, schedule away and
  * return 0.  j_list_lock is dropped in this case.
  */
-static int inverted_lock(journal_t *journal, struct buffer_head *bh)
+static int inverted_lock(journal_t *journal, struct buffer_head *bh, int locked)
 {
 	if (!jbd_trylock_bh_state(bh)) {
+		if (locked)
+			unlock_buffer(bh);
+		put_bh(bh);
 		spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
 		schedule();
 		return 0;
@@ -209,19 +213,24 @@ write_out_data:
 		if (buffer_dirty(bh)) {
 			if (test_set_buffer_locked(bh)) {
 				BUFFER_TRACE(bh, "needs blocking lock");
+				put_bh(bh);
 				spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
 				/* Write out all data to prevent deadlocks */
 				journal_do_submit_data(wbuf, bufs);
 				bufs = 0;
-				lock_buffer(bh);
 				spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+				continue;
 			}
 			locked = 1;
 		}
-		/* We have to get bh_state lock. Again out of order, sigh. */
-		if (!inverted_lock(journal, bh)) {
-			jbd_lock_bh_state(bh);
+		/*
+		 * We have to get bh_state lock. If the try lock fails,
+		 * release the ref on the buffer, give up cpu and retry the
+		 * whole operation.
+		 */
+		if (!inverted_lock(journal, bh, locked)) {
 			spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+			continue;
 		}
 		/* Someone already cleaned up the buffer? */
 		if (!buffer_jbd(bh)
@@ -430,8 +439,7 @@ void journal_commit_transaction(journal_
 				err = -EIO;
 			spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
 		}
-		if (!inverted_lock(journal, bh)) {
-			put_bh(bh);
+		if (!inverted_lock(journal, bh, 0)) {
 			spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
 			continue;
 		}
Index: linux-2.6.26-rc1/fs/jbd/transaction.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.26-rc1.orig/fs/jbd/transaction.c	2008-05-03 11:59:44.000000000 -0700
+++ linux-2.6.26-rc1/fs/jbd/transaction.c	2008-05-09 09:53:57.000000000 -0700
@@ -1714,6 +1714,19 @@ int journal_try_to_free_buffers(journal_
 			goto busy;
 	} while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
 	ret = try_to_free_buffers(page);
+	if (ret == 0) {
+		/*
+		 * it is possible that journal_submit_data_buffers()
+		 * still holds the bh ref even if clears the jh
+		 * after journal_remove_journal_head,
+		 * which leads to try_to_free_buffers() failed
+		 * let's wait for journal_submit_data_buffers()
+		 * to finishing remove the bh from the sync_data_list
+		 */
+		spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+		ret = try_to_free_buffers(page);
+		spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);
+	}
 busy:
 	return ret;
 }


--
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/