Re: [PATCH 0/4] change sb_writers to use percpu_rw_semaphore

[Oleg Nesterov]

On 08/11, Dave Chinner wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2015 at 04:59:42PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> >
> > One would like to construct the lock chain as:
> >
> > CPU0 (chown foo dir)	CPU1 (readdir dir)	CPU2 (page fault)
> > process Y		process X, thread 0	process X, thread 1
> >
> > 			get ILOCK for dir
> > gets freeze protection
> > starts transaction in xfs_setattr_nonsize
> > waits to get ILOCK on 'dir'
> > 						get mmap_sem for X
> > 			wait for mmap_sem for process X
> > 			  in filldir()
> > 						wait for freeze protection in
> > 						  xfs_page_mkwrite
> >
> > and CPU3 then being in freeze_super() blocking CPU2 and waiting for CPU0 to
> > finish it's freeze-protected section. But this cannot happen. The reason is
> > that we block writers level-by-level and thus while there are writers at
> > level X, we do not block writers at level X+1. So in this particular case
> > freeze_super() will block waiting for CPU0 to finish its freeze protected
> > section while CPU2 is free to continue.
> >
> > In general we have a chain like
> >
> > freeze L0 -> freeze L1 -> freeze L2 -> ILOCK -> mmap_sem --\
> >                 A                                          |
> >                 \------------------------------------------/
> >
> > But since ILOCK is always acquired with freeze protection at L0 and we can
> > block at L1 only after there are no writers at L0, this loop can never
> > happen.
> >
> > Note that if we use the property of freezing that lock at level X+1 cannot
> > block when we hold lock at level X, we can as well simplify the dependency
> > graph and track in it only the lowest level of freeze lock that is
> > currently acquired (since the levels above it cannot block and do not in
> > any way influence blocking of other processes either and thus are
> > irrelevant for the purpose of deadlock detection). Then the dependency
> > graph we'd get would be:
> >
> > freeze L0 -> ILOCK -> mmap_sem -> freeze L1
> >
> > and we have a nice acyclic graph we like to see... So probably we have to
> > hack the lockdep instrumentation some more and just don't tell lockdep
> > about freeze locks at higher levels if we already hold a lock at lower
> > level. Thoughts?
>
> The XFS directory ilock->filldir->might_fault locking path has been
> generating false positives in quite a lot of places because of
> things we do on one side of the mmap_sem in filesystem paths vs
> thigs we do on the other side of the mmap_sem in the page fault
> path.

OK. Dave, Jan, thanks a lot.

I was also confused because I didn't know that "Chain exists of" part
of print_circular_bug() only prints the _partial_ chain, and I have
to admit that I do not even understand which part it actually shows...

I'll drop

	move rwsem_release() from sb_wait_write() to freeze_super()
	change thaw_super() to re-acquire s_writers.lock_map

from the previous series and resend everything. Lets change sb_writers to
use percpu_rw_semaphore first, then try to improve the lockdep annotations.

See the interdiff below. With this change I have

	TEST_DEV=/dev/loop0 TEST_DIR=TEST SCRATCH_DEV=/dev/loop1 SCRATCH_MNT=SCRATCH \
	./check `grep -il freeze tests/*/???`

	...

	Ran: generic/068 generic/085 generic/280 generic/311 xfs/011 xfs/119 xfs/297
	Passed all 7 tests

anything else I should test?

Oleg.

this needs a comment in sb_wait_write() to explain that this is not what
we want.

--- a/fs/super.c
+++ b/fs/super.c
@@ -1215,27 +1215,15 @@ EXPORT_SYMBOL(__sb_start_write);
 static void sb_wait_write(struct super_block *sb, int level)
 {
 	percpu_down_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level-1);
+	percpu_rwsem_release(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level-1, 0, _THIS_IP_);
 }
 
-static void sb_freeze_release(struct super_block *sb)
-{
-	int level;
-	/* Avoid the warning from lockdep_sys_exit() */
-	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level)
-		percpu_rwsem_release(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level, 0, _THIS_IP_);
-}
-
-static void sb_freeze_acquire(struct super_block *sb)
+static void sb_freeze_unlock(struct super_block *sb)
 {
 	int level;
 
 	for (level = 0; level < SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; ++level)
 		percpu_rwsem_acquire(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level, 0, _THIS_IP_);
-}
-
-static void sb_freeze_unlock(struct super_block *sb)
-{
-	int level;
 
 	for (level = SB_FREEZE_LEVELS; --level >= 0; )
 		percpu_up_write(sb->s_writers.rw_sem + level);
@@ -1331,7 +1319,6 @@ int freeze_super(struct super_block *sb)
 	 * sees write activity when frozen is set to SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE.
 	 */
 	sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE;
-	sb_freeze_release(sb);
 	up_write(&sb->s_umount);
 	return 0;
 }
@@ -1358,14 +1345,11 @@ int thaw_super(struct super_block *sb)
 		goto out;
 	}
 
-	sb_freeze_acquire(sb);
-
 	if (sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs) {
 		error = sb->s_op->unfreeze_fs(sb);
 		if (error) {
 			printk(KERN_ERR
 				"VFS:Filesystem thaw failed\n");
-			sb_freeze_release(sb);
 			up_write(&sb->s_umount);
 			return error;
 		}

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