From: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>,
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: xfs bug in 2.6.26-rc9
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:12:52 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487C07A4.70202@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080714121332.GX29319@disturbed>
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 05:34:51PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>> Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>
>>>> That aside, what was the assert failure reported prior to the oops?
>>>> i.e. paste the lines in the log before the ---[ cut here ]--- line?
>>>> One of them will start with 'Assertion failed:', I think....
>>> These ones?
>>>
>>> Jul 8 04:44:56 via kernel: [554197.888008] Assertion failed: whichfork
>>> == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c,
>>> line: 5879
>>> Jul 9 03:25:21 via kernel: [42940.748007] Assertion failed: whichfork
>>> == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c,
>>> line: 5879
>> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED);
>>
>> if (whichfork == XFS_DATA_FORK &&
>> (ip->i_delayed_blks || ip->i_size > ip->i_d.di_size)) {
>> /* xfs_fsize_t last_byte = xfs_file_last_byte(ip); */
>> error = xfs_flush_pages(ip, (xfs_off_t)0,
>> -1, 0, FI_REMAPF);
>> if (error) {
>> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED);
>> return error;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> ASSERT(whichfork == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0);
>>
>> This is a race between xfs_fsr and a mmap write. xfs_fsr acquires the
>> iolock and then flushes the file and because it has the iolock it doesn't
>> expect any new delayed allocations to occur. A mmap write can allocate
>> delayed allocations without acquiring the iolock so is able to get in
>> after the flush but before the ASSERT.
>
> Christoph and I were contemplating this problem with ->page_mkwrite
> reecently. The problem is that we can't, right now, return an
> EAGAIN-like error to ->page_mkwrite() and have it retry the
> page fault. Other parts of the page faulting code can do this,
> so it seems like a solvable problem.
>
> The basic concept is that if we can return a EAGAIN result we can
> try-lock the inode and hold the locks necessary to avoid this race
> or prevent the page fault from dirtying the page until the
> filesystem is unfrozen.
Why do we need to try-lock the inode? Will we have an ABBA deadlock
if we block on the iolock in ->page_mkwrite()?
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>
To: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@sgi.com>,
Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, xfs@oss.sgi.com,
linux-mm@kvack.org
Subject: Re: xfs bug in 2.6.26-rc9
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2008 12:12:52 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <487C07A4.70202@sgi.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080714121332.GX29319@disturbed>
Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 05:34:51PM +1000, Lachlan McIlroy wrote:
>> Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> On Fri, 11 Jul 2008, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>
>>>> That aside, what was the assert failure reported prior to the oops?
>>>> i.e. paste the lines in the log before the ---[ cut here ]--- line?
>>>> One of them will start with 'Assertion failed:', I think....
>>> These ones?
>>>
>>> Jul 8 04:44:56 via kernel: [554197.888008] Assertion failed: whichfork
>>> == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c,
>>> line: 5879
>>> Jul 9 03:25:21 via kernel: [42940.748007] Assertion failed: whichfork
>>> == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0, file: fs/xfs/xfs_bmap.c,
>>> line: 5879
>> xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED);
>>
>> if (whichfork == XFS_DATA_FORK &&
>> (ip->i_delayed_blks || ip->i_size > ip->i_d.di_size)) {
>> /* xfs_fsize_t last_byte = xfs_file_last_byte(ip); */
>> error = xfs_flush_pages(ip, (xfs_off_t)0,
>> -1, 0, FI_REMAPF);
>> if (error) {
>> xfs_iunlock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED);
>> return error;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> ASSERT(whichfork == XFS_ATTR_FORK || ip->i_delayed_blks == 0);
>>
>> This is a race between xfs_fsr and a mmap write. xfs_fsr acquires the
>> iolock and then flushes the file and because it has the iolock it doesn't
>> expect any new delayed allocations to occur. A mmap write can allocate
>> delayed allocations without acquiring the iolock so is able to get in
>> after the flush but before the ASSERT.
>
> Christoph and I were contemplating this problem with ->page_mkwrite
> reecently. The problem is that we can't, right now, return an
> EAGAIN-like error to ->page_mkwrite() and have it retry the
> page fault. Other parts of the page faulting code can do this,
> so it seems like a solvable problem.
>
> The basic concept is that if we can return a EAGAIN result we can
> try-lock the inode and hold the locks necessary to avoid this race
> or prevent the page fault from dirtying the page until the
> filesystem is unfrozen.
Why do we need to try-lock the inode? Will we have an ABBA deadlock
if we block on the iolock in ->page_mkwrite()?
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-07-15 2:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-07-11 7:46 xfs bug in 2.6.26-rc9 Mikael Abrahamsson
2008-07-11 8:42 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-11 10:21 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2008-07-14 7:30 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-14 8:16 ` Mikael Abrahamsson
2008-07-14 7:34 ` Lachlan McIlroy
2008-07-14 12:13 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-14 12:13 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-15 2:12 ` Lachlan McIlroy [this message]
2008-07-15 2:12 ` Lachlan McIlroy
2008-07-15 3:18 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-15 3:18 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-15 6:17 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-15 6:17 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-15 12:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-07-15 12:22 ` Christoph Hellwig
2008-07-16 4:12 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-16 4:12 ` Nick Piggin
2008-07-11 19:02 ` Sebastian Siewior
2008-07-11 19:52 ` Eric Sandeen
2008-07-11 23:22 ` Dave Chinner
2008-07-12 5:06 ` Sebastian Siewior
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=487C07A4.70202@sgi.com \
--to=lachlan@sgi.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
--cc=swmike@swm.pp.se \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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.