All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: kernel-team@android.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	Light Hsieh <Light.Hsieh@mediatek.com>,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: avoid race condition for shinker count
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:31:22 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201112053122.GA3826485@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f8de28c2-da2f-f988-7fc9-6f38f19f3f41@huawei.com>

On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/11/10 12:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2020/11/10 1:00, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > Light reported sometimes shinker gets nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt resulting in
> > > 
> > > I didn't get the problem clearly, did you mean __count_nat_entries() will
> > > give the wrong shrink count due to race condition? should there be a lock
> > > while reading these two variables?
> > > 
> > > > wrong do_shinker work. Basically the two counts should not happen like that.
> > > > 
> > > > So, I suspect this race condtion where:
> > > > - f2fs_try_to_free_nats            __flush_nat_entry_set
> > > >    nat_cnt=2, dirty_nat_cnt=2
> > > >                                      __clear_nat_cache_dirty
> > > >                                       spin_lock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >                                       list_move()
> > > >                                       spin_unlock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    spin_lock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    list_del()
> > > >    spin_unlock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=2
> > > >                                      nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=1
> > > 
> > > nm_i->nat_cnt and nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt were protected by
> > > nm_i->nat_tree_lock, I didn't see why expanding nat_list_lock range
> > > will help... since there are still places nat_list_lock() didn't
> > > cover these two reference counts.
> > 
> > Yeah, I missed nat_tree_lock, and indeed it should cover this. So, the problem
> > is Light reported subtle case of nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt in shrink_count.
> > We may need to use nat_tree_lock in shrink_count?
> 
> change like this?
> 

Yup.

> __count_nat_entries()
> 
> 	down_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> 	count = NM_I(sbi)->nat_cnt - NM_I(sbi)->dirty_nat_cnt;
> 	up_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Light Hsieh <Light.Hsieh@mediatek.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >    fs/f2fs/node.c | 3 +--
> > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > index 42394de6c7eb..e8ec65e40f06 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > @@ -269,11 +269,10 @@ static void __clear_nat_cache_dirty(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i,
> > > >    {
> > > >    	spin_lock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > >    	list_move_tail(&ne->list, &nm_i->nat_entries);
> > > > -	spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > > -
> > > >    	set_nat_flag(ne, IS_DIRTY, false);
> > > >    	set->entry_cnt--;
> > > >    	nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt--;
> > > > +	spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > >    }
> > > >    static unsigned int __gang_lookup_nat_set(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i,
> > > > 
> > .
> > 


_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@android.com,
	Light Hsieh <Light.Hsieh@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: avoid race condition for shinker count
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:31:22 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201112053122.GA3826485@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <f8de28c2-da2f-f988-7fc9-6f38f19f3f41@huawei.com>

On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/11/10 12:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2020/11/10 1:00, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > Light reported sometimes shinker gets nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt resulting in
> > > 
> > > I didn't get the problem clearly, did you mean __count_nat_entries() will
> > > give the wrong shrink count due to race condition? should there be a lock
> > > while reading these two variables?
> > > 
> > > > wrong do_shinker work. Basically the two counts should not happen like that.
> > > > 
> > > > So, I suspect this race condtion where:
> > > > - f2fs_try_to_free_nats            __flush_nat_entry_set
> > > >    nat_cnt=2, dirty_nat_cnt=2
> > > >                                      __clear_nat_cache_dirty
> > > >                                       spin_lock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >                                       list_move()
> > > >                                       spin_unlock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    spin_lock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    list_del()
> > > >    spin_unlock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=2
> > > >                                      nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=1
> > > 
> > > nm_i->nat_cnt and nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt were protected by
> > > nm_i->nat_tree_lock, I didn't see why expanding nat_list_lock range
> > > will help... since there are still places nat_list_lock() didn't
> > > cover these two reference counts.
> > 
> > Yeah, I missed nat_tree_lock, and indeed it should cover this. So, the problem
> > is Light reported subtle case of nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt in shrink_count.
> > We may need to use nat_tree_lock in shrink_count?
> 
> change like this?
> 

Yup.

> __count_nat_entries()
> 
> 	down_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> 	count = NM_I(sbi)->nat_cnt - NM_I(sbi)->dirty_nat_cnt;
> 	up_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Light Hsieh <Light.Hsieh@mediatek.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >    fs/f2fs/node.c | 3 +--
> > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > index 42394de6c7eb..e8ec65e40f06 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > @@ -269,11 +269,10 @@ static void __clear_nat_cache_dirty(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i,
> > > >    {
> > > >    	spin_lock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > >    	list_move_tail(&ne->list, &nm_i->nat_entries);
> > > > -	spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > > -
> > > >    	set_nat_flag(ne, IS_DIRTY, false);
> > > >    	set->entry_cnt--;
> > > >    	nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt--;
> > > > +	spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > >    }
> > > >    static unsigned int __gang_lookup_nat_set(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i,
> > > > 
> > .
> > 

  reply	other threads:[~2020-11-12  5:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 26+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-11-09 17:00 [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: avoid race condition for shinker count Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-09 17:00 ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-10  2:15 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
2020-11-10  2:15   ` Chao Yu
2020-11-10  4:19   ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-10  4:19     ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-10  6:04     ` Chao Yu
2020-11-10  6:04       ` Chao Yu
2020-11-12  5:31       ` Jaegeuk Kim [this message]
2020-11-12  5:31         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-12  5:34 ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v2] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-12  5:34   ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-12  5:40   ` [f2fs-dev] [PATCH v3] " Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-12  5:40     ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-12  6:57     ` Chao Yu
2020-11-12  6:57       ` Chao Yu
2020-11-17 16:40       ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-11-17 16:40         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-12-03  6:07     ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-12-03  6:07       ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-12-03  6:55       ` Chao Yu
2020-12-03  6:55         ` Chao Yu
2020-12-03  7:55         ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-12-03  7:55           ` Jaegeuk Kim
2020-12-03  8:16           ` Chao Yu
2020-12-03  8:16             ` Chao Yu

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20201112053122.GA3826485@google.com \
    --to=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
    --cc=Light.Hsieh@mediatek.com \
    --cc=kernel-team@android.com \
    --cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=yuchao0@huawei.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.