Linux Btrfs filesystem development
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH RFC 4/4] btrfs: inode: make btrfs_invalidatepage() to be subpage compatible
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2020 12:57:37 +0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20201217045737.48100-5-wqu@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20201217045737.48100-1-wqu@suse.com>

[BUG]
With current subpage RW patchset, the following script can lead to
filesystem hang:
  # mkfs.btrfs -f -s 4k $dev
  # mount $dev -o nospace_cache $mnt
  # fsstress -w -n 100 -p 1 -s 1608140256 -v -d $mnt

The file system will hang at wait_event() of
btrfs_start_ordered_extent().

[CAUSE]
The root cause is, btrfs_invalidatepage() is freeing page::private which
still has subpage dirty bit set.

The offending situation happens like this:
btrfs_fllocate()
|- btrfs_zero_range()
   |- btrfs_punch_hole_lock_range()
      |- truncate_pagecache_range()
         |- btrfs_invalidatepage()

The involved range looks like:

0	32K	64K	96K	128K
	|///////||//////|
	| Range to drop |

For the [32K, 64K) range, since the offset is 32K, the page won't be
invalidated.

But for the [64K, 96K) range, the offset is 0, current
btrfs_invalidatepage() will call clear_page_extent_mapped() which will
detach page::private, making the subpage dirty bitmap being cleared.

This prevents later __extent_writepage_io() to locate any range to
write, thus no way to wake up the ordered extents.

[FIX]
To fix the problem this patch will:
- Only clear page status and detach page private when the full page
  is invalidated

- Change how we handle unfinished ordered extent
  If there is any ordered extent unfinished in the page range, we can't
  call clear_extent_bit() with delete == true.

[REASON FOR RFC]
There is still uncertainty around the btrfs_releasepage() call.

1. Why we need btrfs_releasepage() call for non-full-page condition?
   Other fs (aka. xfs) just exit without doing special handling if
   invalidatepage() is called with part of the page.

   Thus I didn't completely understand why btrfs_releasepage() here is
   needed for non-full page call.

2. Why "if (offset)" is not causing problem for current code?
   This existing if (offset) call can be skipped for cases like
   offset == 0 length == 2K.
   As MM layer can call invalidatepage() with unaligned offset/length,
   for cases like truncate_inode_pages_range().
   This will make btrfs_invalidatepage() to truncate the whole page when
   we only need to zero part of the page.

Signed-off-by: Qu Wenruo <wqu@suse.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/inode.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/inode.c b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
index eb493fbb65f9..872c5309b4ca 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/inode.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/inode.c
@@ -8180,7 +8180,7 @@ static void btrfs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
 	int inode_evicting = inode->vfs_inode.i_state & I_FREEING;
 	bool cleared_private2;
 	bool found_ordered = false;
-	bool completed_ordered = false;
+	bool incompleted_ordered = false;
 
 	/*
 	 * we have the page locked, so new writeback can't start,
@@ -8191,7 +8191,13 @@ static void btrfs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
 	 */
 	wait_on_page_writeback(page);
 
-	if (offset) {
+	/*
+	 * The range doesn't cover the full page, just let btrfs_releasepage() to
+	 * check if we can release the extent mapping.
+	 * Any locked/pinned/logged extent map would prevent us freeing the
+	 * extent mapping.
+	 */
+	if (!(offset == 0 && length == PAGE_SIZE)) {
 		btrfs_releasepage(page, GFP_NOFS);
 		return;
 	}
@@ -8208,9 +8214,10 @@ static void btrfs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
 		end = min(page_end,
 			  ordered->file_offset + ordered->num_bytes - 1);
 		/*
-		 * IO on this page will never be started, so we need to account
-		 * for any ordered extents now. Don't clear EXTENT_DELALLOC_NEW
-		 * here, must leave that up for the ordered extent completion.
+		 * IO on this ordered extent will never be started, so we need
+		 * to account for any ordered extents now. Don't clear
+		 * EXTENT_DELALLOC_NEW here, must leave that up for the
+		 * ordered extent completion.
 		 */
 		if (!inode_evicting)
 			clear_extent_bit(tree, start, end,
@@ -8234,7 +8241,8 @@ static void btrfs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
 							   start,
 							   end - start + 1, 1)) {
 				btrfs_finish_ordered_io(ordered);
-				completed_ordered = true;
+			} else {
+				incompleted_ordered = true;
 			}
 		}
 
@@ -8276,7 +8284,7 @@ static void btrfs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
 		 * is cleared if we don't delete, otherwise it can lead to
 		 * corruptions if the i_size is extented later.
 		 */
-		if (found_ordered && !completed_ordered)
+		if (found_ordered && incompleted_ordered)
 			delete = false;
 		clear_extent_bit(tree, page_start, page_end, EXTENT_LOCKED |
 				 EXTENT_DELALLOC | EXTENT_UPTODATE |
@@ -8286,6 +8294,7 @@ static void btrfs_invalidatepage(struct page *page, unsigned int offset,
 		__btrfs_releasepage(page, GFP_NOFS);
 	}
 
+	ClearPagePrivate2(page);
 	ClearPageChecked(page);
 	clear_page_extent_mapped(page);
 }
-- 
2.29.2


  parent reply	other threads:[~2020-12-17  4:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2020-12-17  4:57 [PATCH 0/4] btrfs: inode: btrfs_invalidatepage() related refactor and fix for subpage Qu Wenruo
2020-12-17  4:57 ` [PATCH 1/4] btrfs: inode: use min() to replace open-code in btrfs_invalidatepage() Qu Wenruo
2020-12-17  4:57 ` [PATCH 2/4] btrfs: inode: remove variable shadowing " Qu Wenruo
2020-12-17  5:38   ` Su Yue
2020-12-17  5:42     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-12-17  6:08       ` Su Yue
2020-12-17  5:55   ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-12-17  5:59     ` Nikolay Borisov
2020-12-17  6:13       ` Qu Wenruo
2020-12-17 12:29         ` David Sterba
2020-12-17  4:57 ` [PATCH 3/4] btrfs: inode: move the timing of TestClearPagePrivate() " Qu Wenruo
2020-12-17  4:57 ` Qu Wenruo [this message]
2020-12-17 11:20   ` [PATCH RFC 4/4] btrfs: inode: make btrfs_invalidatepage() to be subpage compatible Filipe Manana
2020-12-22  4:38     ` Qu Wenruo
2020-12-17 14:51   ` Josef Bacik
2020-12-18  0:42     ` Qu Wenruo

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=20201217045737.48100-5-wqu@suse.com \
    --to=wqu@suse.com \
    --cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
    /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