All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jeff Liu <jeff.liu@oracle.com>
To: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
Cc: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>, "xfs@oss.sgi.com" <xfs@oss.sgi.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] xfs: wake up cil->xc_commit_wait while removing ctx from cil->xc_committing
Date: Fri, 03 Jan 2014 18:25:57 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <52C69035.7010606@oracle.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20140102004503.GN20579@dastard>

On 01/02 2014 08:45, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 01, 2014 at 10:38:36PM +0800, Jeff Liu wrote:
>> On 12/30 2013 23:20 PM, Mark Tinguely wrote:
>>> On 12/24/13 06:48, Jeff Liu wrote:
>>>> From: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@oracle.com>
>>>>
>>>> I can easily to hit a hang up while running fsstress and shutting down
>>>> XFS on SSD via the tests below:
>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>     Task1                    Task2
>>>>
>>>>                      list_add(&ctx->committing,&cil->xc_committing);
>>>>
>>>> xlog_wait(&cil->xc_commit_wait..)
>>>> schedule()...
>>>>
>>>>                      Aborting!! list_del(&ctx->committing);
>>>>                      wake_up_all(&cil->xc_commit_wait);<-- MISSING!
>>>>
>>>> As a result, we should handle this situation in xlog_cil_committed().
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Jie Liu<jeff.liu@oracle.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>   fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c | 2 ++
>>>>   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
>>>> index 5eb51fc..8c7e9c7 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
>>>> @@ -406,6 +406,8 @@ xlog_cil_committed(
>>>>
>>>>       spin_lock(&ctx->cil->xc_push_lock);
>>>>       list_del(&ctx->committing);
>>>> +    if (abort)
>>>> +        wake_up_all(&ctx->cil->xc_commit_wait);
>>>>       spin_unlock(&ctx->cil->xc_push_lock);
>>>>
>>>>       xlog_cil_free_logvec(ctx->lv_chain);
>>>
>>> Hi Jeff, I hope you had a good break,
>> Thanks :)
>>>
>>> So you are saying the wakeup in the CIL push error path missing?
>> Yes.
>>
>>> I agree with that. But I don't like adding a new wake up to
>>> xlog_cil_committed(), which is after the log buffer is written.
> 
> Hi Mark, any particular reason why you don't like this? It would be
> great if you could explain why you don't like something up front so
> we don't have to guess at your reasons or wait for another round
> trip in the conversation to find them out....
> 
>> IMO this callback would be called if any problem is happened before
>> the log buffer is written as well, e.g, 
>> xlog_cil_push()->xfs_log_notify() <-- failed
>> 			| 
>>         		|->xlog_cil_committed()
> 
> Right, it's the generic CIL commit handler and it can be called
> directly or from log IO completion.
> 
> The question is this: it is safe to wake up waiters from log IO
> completion if that is where an abort is first triggered from (i.e.
> on log IO error). From what I can see, it is safe to do the wakeup
> on abort because the iclog iwe attach the IO completion callback to
> in xlog_cil_push() cannot be put under IO until we release the
> reference gained in xfs_log_done().
> 
> But this raises an interesting question - the wakeup in
> xlog_cil_push() is done before the log IO for the checkpoint is
> complete, so the wakeup is occurring on checkpoint processing
> completion, not iclog IO completion. i.e. the actual log force
> sleeping still needs to wait for log IO completion to occur after
> then CIL has been pushed. This occurs in the _xfs_log_force{_lsn}()
> wrappers, where iclog state changes are waited for.
> 
> Why is this important? The iclog write/flush wakeups are all done
> from IO completion context, except for the force shutdown case,
> which calls xlog_state_do_callback(log, XFS_LI_ABORTED, NULL); to
> trigger wakeups and aborts via the log IO completion callbacks on
> all the outstanding iclogs.
> 
> IOWs, we've already got a design pattern that says:
> 
> 	- run log force wakeups from IO completions
> 	- on shutdown, run IO completions directly to abort pending
> 	  log operations
> 
> So, really, issuing wakeups from iclog IO completion on log aborts
> or errors is exactly what we currently do to ensure that shutdowns
> don't leave processes waiting on log force completion behind. So
> from that perspective, adding the wakeup on abort to
> xlog_cil_committed() seems like the right approach to take.
> 
> Actually, there's more issues here: xlog_cil_push() leaks a
> reference to the iclog when it triggers the error path via
> xfs_log_notify() failure. At this point we always need to release
> the iclog. Hence if xfs_log_notify() were to always add the IO
> completion to the iclog and xlog_cil_committed() issued wakeups on
> abort errors, then we could completely ignore the log state in
> xfs_log_notify() and have xfs_log_release_iclog() capture the IO
> error and the subsequent shutdown would handle the aborts and
> wakeups....

There is indeed an iclog ref leak after digging into the code.
> 
> Hmmm, then xfs_log_notify could go away, and the callback list could
> be made a lockless list and the ic_callback_lock could go away,
> too....

Hence we can fold xfs_log_notify() into xlog_cil_push() directly, but am
not sure I get the reason why we could make the callback list lockless:
When attaching the IO completion callback to iclog, we assert the iclog
state to be XLOG_STATE_ACTIVE or XLOG_STATE_WANT_SYNC, but in the other
place where we also try to get the ic_callback_lock, i.e,
xlog_state_do_callback(),  we only perform callbacks for iclogs that in
XLOG_STATE_DONE_SYNC or in XLOG_STATE_DO_CALLBACK, so they're already
prevented from the potential race situations, am I understood correctly?

Also, it seems like the iclog->ic_callback_tail can go away as well,
since it only serves as a left value.

Thanks,
-Jeff

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs

  reply	other threads:[~2014-01-03 10:26 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-12-24 12:48 [PATCH 1/4] xfs: wake up cil->xc_commit_wait while removing ctx from cil->xc_committing Jeff Liu
2013-12-30 15:20 ` Mark Tinguely
2014-01-01 14:38   ` Jeff Liu
2014-01-02  0:45     ` Dave Chinner
2014-01-03 10:25       ` Jeff Liu [this message]
2014-01-03 13:17         ` Jeff Liu
2014-01-03 15:30           ` Mark Tinguely

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=52C69035.7010606@oracle.com \
    --to=jeff.liu@oracle.com \
    --cc=david@fromorbit.com \
    --cc=tinguely@sgi.com \
    --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.