CEPH filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
To: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Dongsheng Yang <dongsheng.yang@easystack.cn>
Subject: [PATCH 2/3] rbd: don't assume RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED for exclusive mappings
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 08:29:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240724062914.667734-3-idryomov@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20240724062914.667734-1-idryomov@gmail.com>

Every time a watch is reestablished after getting lost, we need to
update the cookie which involves quiescing exclusive lock.  For this,
we transition from RBD_LOCK_STATE_LOCKED to RBD_LOCK_STATE_QUIESCING
roughly for the duration of rbd_reacquire_lock() call.  If the mapping
is exclusive and I/O happens to arrive in this time window, it's failed
with EROFS (later translated to EIO) based on the wrong assumption in
rbd_img_exclusive_lock() -- "lock got released?" check there stopped
making sense with commit a2b1da09793d ("rbd: lock should be quiesced on
reacquire").

To make it worse, any such I/O is added to the acquiring list before
EROFS is returned and this sets up for violating rbd_lock_del_request()
precondition that the request is either on the running list or not on
any list at all -- see commit ded080c86b3f ("rbd: don't move requests
to the running list on errors").  rbd_lock_del_request() ends up
processing these requests as if they were on the running list which
screws up quiescing_wait completion counter and ultimately leads to

    rbd_assert(!completion_done(&rbd_dev->quiescing_wait));

being triggered on the next watch error.

Signed-off-by: Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>
---
 drivers/block/rbd.c | 10 +++++-----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/block/rbd.c b/drivers/block/rbd.c
index 77a9f19a0035..dc4ddae4f7eb 100644
--- a/drivers/block/rbd.c
+++ b/drivers/block/rbd.c
@@ -3457,6 +3457,7 @@ static void rbd_lock_del_request(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
 	lockdep_assert_held(&rbd_dev->lock_rwsem);
 	spin_lock(&rbd_dev->lock_lists_lock);
 	if (!list_empty(&img_req->lock_item)) {
+		rbd_assert(!list_empty(&rbd_dev->running_list));
 		list_del_init(&img_req->lock_item);
 		need_wakeup = (rbd_dev->lock_state == RBD_LOCK_STATE_QUIESCING &&
 			       list_empty(&rbd_dev->running_list));
@@ -3476,11 +3477,6 @@ static int rbd_img_exclusive_lock(struct rbd_img_request *img_req)
 	if (rbd_lock_add_request(img_req))
 		return 1;
 
-	if (rbd_dev->opts->exclusive) {
-		WARN_ON(1); /* lock got released? */
-		return -EROFS;
-	}
-
 	/*
 	 * Note the use of mod_delayed_work() in rbd_acquire_lock()
 	 * and cancel_delayed_work() in wake_lock_waiters().
@@ -4601,6 +4597,10 @@ static void rbd_reacquire_lock(struct rbd_device *rbd_dev)
 			rbd_warn(rbd_dev, "failed to update lock cookie: %d",
 				 ret);
 
+		if (rbd_dev->opts->exclusive)
+			rbd_warn(rbd_dev,
+			     "temporarily releasing lock on exclusive mapping");
+
 		/*
 		 * Lock cookie cannot be updated on older OSDs, so do
 		 * a manual release and queue an acquire.
-- 
2.45.1


  parent reply	other threads:[~2024-07-24  6:29 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2024-07-24  6:29 [PATCH 0/3] rbd: exclusive mapping (-o exclusive) fixes Ilya Dryomov
2024-07-24  6:29 ` [PATCH 1/3] rbd: rename RBD_LOCK_STATE_RELEASING and releasing_wait Ilya Dryomov
2024-07-25  8:46   ` Dongsheng Yang
2024-07-24  6:29 ` Ilya Dryomov [this message]
2024-07-24  6:29 ` [PATCH 3/3] rbd: don't assume rbd_is_lock_owner() for exclusive mappings Ilya Dryomov
2024-07-25  8:45   ` Dongsheng Yang
2024-07-25  9:31     ` Ilya Dryomov
2024-07-25 10:08       ` Dongsheng Yang
2024-07-25 10:22         ` Ilya Dryomov

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=20240724062914.667734-3-idryomov@gmail.com \
    --to=idryomov@gmail.com \
    --cc=ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=dongsheng.yang@easystack.cn \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox