Re: Writeback bug causing writeback stalls

[Jan Kara]

On Sun 24-05-20 22:05:22, Hillf Danton wrote:
> 
> On Fri, 22 May 2020 11:57:42 +0200 Martijn Coenen wrote:
> > 
> > So, the sequence of events is something like this. Let's assume the inode is
> > already on b_dirty_time for valid reasons. Then:
> > 
> > CPU1                                          CPU2
> > fuse_flush()
> >   write_inode_now()
> >     writeback_single_inode()
> >       sets I_SYNC
> >         __writeback_single_inode()
> >           writes back data
> >           clears inode dirty flags
> >           unlocks inode
> >           calls mark_inode_dirty_sync()
> >             sets I_DIRTY_SYNC, but doesn't
> >             update wb list because I_SYNC is
> >             still set
> >                                               write() // somebody else writes
> >                                               mark_inode_dirty(I_DIRTY_PAGES)
> >                                               sets I_DIRTY_PAGES on i_state
> >                                               doesn't update wb list,
> >                                               because I_SYNC set
> >       locks inode again
> >       sees inode is still dirty,
> >       doesn't touch WB list
> >       clears I_SYNC
> > 
> > So now we have an inode on b_dirty_time with I_DIRTY_PAGES | I_DIRTY_SYNC set,
> > and subsequent calls to mark_inode_dirty() with either I_DIRTY_PAGES or
> > I_DIRTY_SYNC will do nothing to change that. The flusher won't touch
> > the inode either, because it's not on a b_dirty or b_io list.

Hi Hillf,

> Based on the above analysis, check of I_DIRTY_TIME is added before and
> after calling __writeback_single_inode() to detect the case you reported.
> 
> If a dirty inode is not on the right io list after writeback, we can
> move it to a new one; and we can do that as we are the I_SYNC owner.
> 
> While changing its io list, the inode's dirty timestamp is also updated
> to the current tick as does in __mark_inode_dirty().

Apparently you didn't read my reply to Martinj because what you did in this
patch is exactly what I described that we cannot do because that can cause
sync(2) to miss inodes and thus break its data integrity guarantees. So we
have to come up with a different solution.

								Honza

> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -1528,6 +1528,7 @@ static int writeback_single_inode(struct
>  				  struct writeback_control *wbc)
>  {
>  	struct bdi_writeback *wb;
> +	bool dt;
>  	int ret = 0;
>  
>  	spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> @@ -1560,6 +1561,7 @@ static int writeback_single_inode(struct
>  	     !mapping_tagged(inode->i_mapping, PAGECACHE_TAG_WRITEBACK)))
>  		goto out;
>  	inode->i_state |= I_SYNC;
> +	dt = inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME;
>  	wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode(wbc, inode);
>  
>  	ret = __writeback_single_inode(inode, wbc);
> @@ -1574,6 +1576,14 @@ static int writeback_single_inode(struct
>  	 */
>  	if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_ALL))
>  		inode_io_list_del_locked(inode, wb);
> +	else if (!(inode->i_state & I_DIRTY_TIME) && dt) {
> +		/*
> +		 * We can correct inode's io list, however, by moving it to
> +		 * b_dirty from b_dirty_time as we are the I_SYNC owner
> +		 */
> +		inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
> +		inode_io_list_move_locked(inode, wb, &wb->b_dirty);
> +	}
>  	spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
>  	inode_sync_complete(inode);
>  out:
> --
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR