* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-10 7:31 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-07-10 7:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
>>>> issue deeper.
>>>>
>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
>>>
>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
>>
>> Okay,
>>
>>>
>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
>>
>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
>
> I found this.
>
> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
+ !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
goto skip_write;
>
>>
>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
>
> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
cp_error, right?
e.g.
Thread A Thread B
- f2fs_create
- bypass f2fs_cp_error
- set cp_error
- create dirty dentry
BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
2020-07-10 7:31 ` Chao Yu
@ 2020-07-10 8:16 ` Jaegeuk Kim
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-10 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>
> >> Okay,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>
> >> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >
> > I found this.
> >
> > [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> > [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> > [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> > [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> > [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> > [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> > [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> > [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> > [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> > [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> > [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> > [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> > [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> > [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> > [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> > [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> > [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> > [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> > [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>
> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
Will give it a try. It's quite flaky so may take some time.
>
> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> goto skip_write;
>
> >
> >>
> >> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >
> > I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> > e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>
> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> cp_error, right?
>
> e.g.
>
> Thread A Thread B
> - f2fs_create
> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> - set cp_error
> - create dirty dentry
>
> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>
> > dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-10 8:16 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-10 8:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>
> >> Okay,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>
> >> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >
> > I found this.
> >
> > [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> > [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> > [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> > [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> > [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> > [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> > [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> > [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> > [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> > [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> > [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> > [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> > [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> > [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> > [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> > [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> > [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> > [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> > [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>
> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
Will give it a try. It's quite flaky so may take some time.
>
> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> goto skip_write;
>
> >
> >>
> >> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >
> > I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> > e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>
> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> cp_error, right?
>
> e.g.
>
> Thread A Thread B
> - f2fs_create
> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> - set cp_error
> - create dirty dentry
>
> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>
> > dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
2020-07-10 7:31 ` Chao Yu
@ 2020-07-13 17:59 ` Jaegeuk Kim
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-13 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>
> >> Okay,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>
> >> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >
> > I found this.
> >
> > [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> > [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> > [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> > [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> > [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> > [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> > [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> > [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> > [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> > [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> > [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> > [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> > [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> > [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> > [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> > [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> > [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> > [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> > [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>
> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>
> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> goto skip_write;
Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
I'll try the original patch one more time.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >
> > I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> > e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>
> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> cp_error, right?
>
> e.g.
>
> Thread A Thread B
> - f2fs_create
> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> - set cp_error
> - create dirty dentry
>
> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>
> > dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-13 17:59 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-13 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>
> >>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>
> >>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>
> >>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>
> >> Okay,
> >>
> >>>
> >>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>
> >> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >
> > I found this.
> >
> > [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> > [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> > [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> > [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> > [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> > [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> > [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> > [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> > [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> > [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> > [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> > [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> > [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> > [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> > [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> > [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> > [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> > [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> > [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>
> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>
> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> goto skip_write;
Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
I'll try the original patch one more time.
>
> >
> >>
> >> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >
> > I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> > e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>
> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> cp_error, right?
>
> e.g.
>
> Thread A Thread B
> - f2fs_create
> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> - set cp_error
> - create dirty dentry
>
> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>
> > dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
2020-07-13 17:59 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2020-07-14 12:14 ` Chao Yu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-07-14 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
>>>>>> issue deeper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
>>>>
>>>> Okay,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
>>>>
>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
>>>
>>> I found this.
>>>
>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>>
>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>>
>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>> goto skip_write;
>
> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
Thanks,
> I'll try the original patch one more time.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
>>>
>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>>
>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
>> cp_error, right?
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> Thread A Thread B
>> - f2fs_create
>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
>> - set cp_error
>> - create dirty dentry
>>
>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>>
>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-14 12:14 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-07-14 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
>>>>>> issue deeper.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
>>>>
>>>> Okay,
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
>>>>
>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
>>>
>>> I found this.
>>>
>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>>
>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>>
>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>> goto skip_write;
>
> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
Thanks,
> I'll try the original patch one more time.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
>>>
>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>>
>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
>> cp_error, right?
>>
>> e.g.
>>
>> Thread A Thread B
>> - f2fs_create
>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
>> - set cp_error
>> - create dirty dentry
>>
>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>>
>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
2020-07-14 12:14 ` Chao Yu
@ 2020-07-15 19:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-15 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >>>
> >>> I found this.
> >>>
> >>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> >>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> >>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> >>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> >>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> >>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> >>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> >>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> >>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> >>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> >>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> >>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> >>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> >>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> >>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> >>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> >>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> >>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> >>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
> >>
> >> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
> >>
> >> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> >> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >> goto skip_write;
> >
> > Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
>
> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
I need to return back and think in other way. :(
>
> Thanks,
>
> > I'll try the original patch one more time.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >>>
> >>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> >>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
> >>
> >> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> >> cp_error, right?
> >>
> >> e.g.
> >>
> >> Thread A Thread B
> >> - f2fs_create
> >> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> >> - set cp_error
> >> - create dirty dentry
> >>
> >> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
> >>
> >>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-15 19:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-15 19:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Okay,
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>>>
> >>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >>>
> >>> I found this.
> >>>
> >>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> >>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> >>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> >>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> >>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> >>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> >>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> >>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> >>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> >>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> >>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> >>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> >>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> >>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> >>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> >>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> >>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> >>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> >>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
> >>
> >> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
> >>
> >> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> >> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >> goto skip_write;
> >
> > Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
>
> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
I need to return back and think in other way. :(
>
> Thanks,
>
> > I'll try the original patch one more time.
> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >>>
> >>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> >>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
> >>
> >> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> >> cp_error, right?
> >>
> >> e.g.
> >>
> >> Thread A Thread B
> >> - f2fs_create
> >> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> >> - set cp_error
> >> - create dirty dentry
> >>
> >> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
> >>
> >>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
2020-07-15 19:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2020-07-16 1:08 ` Chao Yu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-07-16 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 2020/7/16 3:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
>>>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
>>>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
>>>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
>>>>>>>> issue deeper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
>>>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
>>>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
>>>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
>>>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
>>>>>
>>>>> I found this.
>>>>>
>>>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
>>>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
>>>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
>>>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
>>>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
>>>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
>>>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
>>>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
>>>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
>>>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
>>>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
>>>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
>>>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
>>>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
>>>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
>>>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
>>>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
>>>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
>>>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>>>>
>>>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>>>>
>>>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>
>>> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
>>
>> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
>
> Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
> I need to return back and think in other way. :(
Still quota data was left? what about dentry?
Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> I'll try the original patch one more time.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
>>>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
>>>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>>>>
>>>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
>>>> cp_error, right?
>>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>> - f2fs_create
>>>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
>>>> - set cp_error
>>>> - create dirty dentry
>>>>
>>>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>>>>
>>>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
>>>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-16 1:08 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-07-16 1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 2020/7/16 3:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
>>>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
>>>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
>>>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
>>>>>>>> issue deeper.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
>>>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
>>>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
>>>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Okay,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
>>>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
>>>>>
>>>>> I found this.
>>>>>
>>>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
>>>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
>>>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
>>>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
>>>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
>>>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
>>>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
>>>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
>>>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
>>>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
>>>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
>>>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
>>>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
>>>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
>>>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
>>>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
>>>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
>>>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
>>>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>>>>
>>>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>>>>
>>>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>
>>> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
>>
>> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
>
> Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
> I need to return back and think in other way. :(
Still quota data was left? what about dentry?
Thanks,
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>> I'll try the original patch one more time.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
>>>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
>>>>>
>>>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
>>>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>>>>
>>>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
>>>> cp_error, right?
>>>>
>>>> e.g.
>>>>
>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>> - f2fs_create
>>>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
>>>> - set cp_error
>>>> - create dirty dentry
>>>>
>>>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>>>>
>>>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
>>>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
2020-07-16 1:08 ` Chao Yu
@ 2020-07-16 1:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-16 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 07/16, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/16 3:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>>>>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Okay,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I found this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> >>>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> >>>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> >>>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> >>>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> >>>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> >>>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> >>>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> >>>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> >>>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> >>>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> >>>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> >>>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> >>>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> >>>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> >>>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> >>>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> >>>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> >>>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
> >>>>
> >>>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> >>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
> >>
> >> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
> >
> > Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
> > I need to return back and think in other way. :(
>
> Still quota data was left? what about dentry?
Huh, at this time, only node and meta pages were left as dirty.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> I'll try the original patch one more time.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >>>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> >>>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
> >>>>
> >>>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> >>>> cp_error, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> e.g.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thread A Thread B
> >>>> - f2fs_create
> >>>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> >>>> - set cp_error
> >>>> - create dirty dentry
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
> >>>>
> >>>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-16 1:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2020-07-16 1:10 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 07/16, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/7/16 3:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
> >> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
> >>>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
> >>>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
> >>>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
> >>>>>>>> issue deeper.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
> >>>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
> >>>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
> >>>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Okay,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
> >>>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I found this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
> >>>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
> >>>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
> >>>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
> >>>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
> >>>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
> >>>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
> >>>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
> >>>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
> >>>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
> >>>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
> >>>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
> >>>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
> >>>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
> >>>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
> >>>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
> >>>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
> >>>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
> >>>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
> >>>>
> >>>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
> >>>>
> >>>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
> >>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>
> >>> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
> >>
> >> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
> >
> > Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
> > I need to return back and think in other way. :(
>
> Still quota data was left? what about dentry?
Huh, at this time, only node and meta pages were left as dirty.
>
> Thanks,
>
> >
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >>> I'll try the original patch one more time.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
> >>>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
> >>>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
> >>>>
> >>>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
> >>>> cp_error, right?
> >>>>
> >>>> e.g.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thread A Thread B
> >>>> - f2fs_create
> >>>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
> >>>> - set cp_error
> >>>> - create dirty dentry
> >>>>
> >>>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
> >>>>
> >>>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> >>>>>>>>>>> ---
> >>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
> >>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
> >>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
> >>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
> >>>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
> >>>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
> >>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> .
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> .
> >>>>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> > .
> >
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
2020-07-16 1:10 ` Jaegeuk Kim
@ 2020-07-16 1:17 ` Chao Yu
-1 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-07-16 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: kernel-team, linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel
On 2020/7/16 9:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/16, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/7/16 3:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
>>>>>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
>>>>>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
>>>>>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
>>>>>>>>>> issue deeper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
>>>>>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
>>>>>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
>>>>>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
>>>>>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
>>>>>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
>>>>>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
>>>>>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
>>>>>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
>>>>>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
>>>>>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
>>>>>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
>>>>>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
>>>>>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
>>>>>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
>>>>>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
>>>>>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
>>>>>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
>>>>
>>>> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
>>>
>>> Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
>>> I need to return back and think in other way. :(
>>
>> Still quota data was left? what about dentry?
>
> Huh, at this time, only node and meta pages were left as dirty.
I saw both meta and node's writepages() called from background will skip
flushing dirty pages if dirty page count didn't touch the threshold.
/* collect a number of dirty node pages and write together */
if (wbc->sync_mode != WB_SYNC_ALL &&
get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES) <
nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, NODE))
goto skip_write;
/* collect a number of dirty meta pages and write together */
if (wbc->sync_mode != WB_SYNC_ALL &&
get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_META) <
nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, META))
goto skip_write;
At that time, would syncfs (type sync command via shell) help?
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> I'll try the original patch one more time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
>>>>>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
>>>>>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
>>>>>> cp_error, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>>>> - f2fs_create
>>>>>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
>>>>>> - set cp_error
>>>>>> - create dirty dentry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread
* Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: don't skip writeback of quota data
@ 2020-07-16 1:17 ` Chao Yu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 30+ messages in thread
From: Chao Yu @ 2020-07-16 1:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel, kernel-team
On 2020/7/16 9:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/16, Chao Yu wrote:
>> On 2020/7/16 3:10, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>> On 07/14, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>> On 2020/7/14 1:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:50, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 11:26, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 07/10, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/10 3:05, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 07/09, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2020/7/9 13:30, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> It doesn't need to bypass flushing quota data in background.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The condition is used to flush quota data in batch to avoid random
>>>>>>>>>>>> small-sized udpate, did you hit any problem here?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I suspect this causes fault injection test being stuck by waiting for inode
>>>>>>>>>>> writeback completion. With this patch, it has been running w/o any issue so far.
>>>>>>>>>>> I keep an eye on this.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Hmmm.. so that this patch may not fix the root cause, and it may hiding the
>>>>>>>>>> issue deeper.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> How about just keeping this patch in our private branch to let fault injection
>>>>>>>>>> test not be stuck? until we find the root cause in upstream codes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, I don't think this hides something. When the issue happens, I saw inodes
>>>>>>>>> being stuck due to writeback while only quota has some dirty data. At that time,
>>>>>>>>> there was no dirty data page from other inodes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Okay,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> More specifically, I suspect __writeback_inodes_sb_nr() gives WB_SYNC_NONE and
>>>>>>>>> waits for wb_wait_for_completion().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Did you record any callstack after the issue happened?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I found this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [213389.297642] __schedule+0x2dd/0x780^M
>>>>>>> [213389.299224] schedule+0x55/0xc0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.300745] wb_wait_for_completion+0x56/0x90^M
>>>>>>> [213389.302469] ? wait_woken+0x80/0x80^M
>>>>>>> [213389.303997] __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0xa8/0xd0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.305760] writeback_inodes_sb+0x4b/0x60^M
>>>>>>> [213389.307439] sync_filesystem+0x2e/0xa0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.308999] generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x110^M
>>>>>>> [213389.310738] kill_block_super+0x27/0x50^M
>>>>>>> [213389.312327] kill_f2fs_super+0x76/0xe0 [f2fs]^M
>>>>>>> [213389.314014] deactivate_locked_super+0x3b/0x80^M
>>>>>>> [213389.315692] deactivate_super+0x3e/0x50^M
>>>>>>> [213389.317226] cleanup_mnt+0x109/0x160^M
>>>>>>> [213389.318718] __cleanup_mnt+0x12/0x20^M
>>>>>>> [213389.320177] task_work_run+0x70/0xb0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.321609] exit_to_usermode_loop+0x131/0x160^M
>>>>>>> [213389.323306] do_syscall_64+0x170/0x1b0^M
>>>>>>> [213389.324762] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xa9^M
>>>>>>> [213389.326477] RIP: 0033:0x7fc4b5e6a35b^M
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this only happen during umount? If so, will below change help?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>> + !is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_IS_CLOSE) &&
>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm, this doesn't work. The writeback was called before put_super?
>>>>
>>>> Oops, still be confused about this issue. :(
>>>
>>> Huam, I hit the problem with the patch.
>>> I need to return back and think in other way. :(
>>
>> Still quota data was left? what about dentry?
>
> Huh, at this time, only node and meta pages were left as dirty.
I saw both meta and node's writepages() called from background will skip
flushing dirty pages if dirty page count didn't touch the threshold.
/* collect a number of dirty node pages and write together */
if (wbc->sync_mode != WB_SYNC_ALL &&
get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_NODES) <
nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, NODE))
goto skip_write;
/* collect a number of dirty meta pages and write together */
if (wbc->sync_mode != WB_SYNC_ALL &&
get_pages(sbi, F2FS_DIRTY_META) <
nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, META))
goto skip_write;
At that time, would syncfs (type sync command via shell) help?
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>>> I'll try the original patch one more time.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Still I'm confused that why directory's data written could be skipped, but
>>>>>>>> quota's data couldn't, what's the difference?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I suspect different blocking timing from cp_error between quota and dentry.
>>>>>>> e.g., we block dir operations right after cp_error, while quota can make
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No guarantee that there is no dirty dentry being created after
>>>>>> cp_error, right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> e.g.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thread A Thread B
>>>>>> - f2fs_create
>>>>>> - bypass f2fs_cp_error
>>>>>> - set cp_error
>>>>>> - create dirty dentry
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW, do you know what __writeback_inodes_sb_nr is waiting for?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> dirty pages in more fine granularity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> index 44645f4f914b6..72e8b50e588c1 100644
>>>>>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c
>>>>>>>>>>>>> @@ -3148,7 +3148,7 @@ static int __f2fs_write_data_pages(struct address_space *mapping,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> if (unlikely(is_sbi_flag_set(sbi, SBI_POR_DOING)))
>>>>>>>>>>>>> goto skip_write;
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> - if ((S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) || IS_NOQUOTA(inode)) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> + if (S_ISDIR(inode->i_mode) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_NONE &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> get_dirty_pages(inode) < nr_pages_to_skip(sbi, DATA) &&
>>>>>>>>>>>>> f2fs_available_free_memory(sbi, DIRTY_DENTS))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> .
>>>>>>>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>> .
>>>
> .
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 30+ messages in thread