From: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
To: Nikolay Borisov <nborisov@suse.com>
Cc: "linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
David Sterba <dsterba@suse.com>,
Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>,
Damien Le Moal <damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] btrfs: fix deadlock between quota disable and qgroup rescan worker
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 04:03:14 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220114040314.q46pvlcyyno2ze3d@shindev> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220114005236.yrvqqzpegik4xhm3@shindev>
On Jan 14, 2022 / 00:52, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Jan 13, 2022 / 14:53, Nikolay Borisov wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 13.01.22 г. 12:40, Shin'ichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> > > Quota disable ioctl starts a transaction before waiting for the qgroup
> > > rescan worker completes. However, this wait can be infinite and results
> > > in deadlock because of circular dependency among the quota disable
> > > ioctl, the qgroup rescan worker and the other task with transaction such
> > > as block group relocation task.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Suggested-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
> > > ---
> > > fs/btrfs/ctree.h | 2 ++
> > > fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 20 ++++++++++++++++++--
> > > 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > > index b4a9b1c58d22..fe275697e3eb 100644
> > > --- a/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/ctree.h
> > > @@ -145,6 +145,8 @@ enum {
> > > BTRFS_FS_STATE_DUMMY_FS_INFO,
> > >
> > > BTRFS_FS_STATE_NO_CSUMS,
> > > + /* Quota is in disabling process */
> > > + BTRFS_FS_STATE_QUOTA_DISABLING,
> > > };
> > >
> > > #define BTRFS_BACKREF_REV_MAX 256
> > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> > > index 8928275823a1..6f94da4896bc 100644
> > > --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> > > @@ -1188,6 +1188,17 @@ int btrfs_quota_disable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > > mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock);
> > > if (!fs_info->quota_root)
> > > goto out;
> > > + /*
> > > + * Request qgroup rescan worker to complete and wait for it. This wait
> > > + * must be done before transaction start for quota disable since it may
> > > + * deadlock with transaction by the qgroup rescan worker.
> > > + */
> > > + if (test_and_set_bit(BTRFS_FS_STATE_QUOTA_DISABLING,
> > > + &fs_info->fs_state)) {
> > > + ret = -EBUSY;
> > > + goto busy;
> > > + }
> > > + btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion(fs_info, false);
> >
> > Actually you don't need to introduce a separate flag to have this logic,
> > simply clear QUOTA_ENABLED, do the wait, start the transaction - in case
> > of failure i.e not able to get a trans handle just set QUOTA_ENABLED
> > again. Still, moving QUOTA_ENABLED check in rescan_should_stop would be
> > useful as well.
>
> Nikolay, thank you for the comment.
>
> The reason to introduce the new flag is that qgroup_ioctl_lock, which guards
> QUOTA_ENABLED set by quota enable ioctl, is unlocked during the quota disable
> ioctl process to start the transaction. Quote from btrfs_quota_disable():
>
> ...
> mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock);
>
> /*
> * 1 For the root item
> *
> * We should also reserve enough items for the quota tree deletion in
> * btrfs_clean_quota_tree but this is not done.
> *
> * Also, we must always start a transaction without holding the mutex
> * qgroup_ioctl_lock, see btrfs_quota_enable().
> */
> trans = btrfs_start_transaction(fs_info->tree_root, 1);
>
> mutex_lock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock);
> ...
>
> Then even if we would clear QUOTA_ENABLED and wait for qgroup worker completion
> before the transaction start, QUOTA_ENABLED can be set again by quota enable
> ioctl and another qgroup worker can start at the point of the transaction start.
> Even though this scenario is very rare and unlikely, it can happen. So IMO, we
> can not rely on QUOTA_ENABLED to wait for qgroup worker completion.
I relooked at btrfs_quota_enable() and btrfs_quota_disable() and found that my
response above is wrong. btrfs_quota_enable() checks fs_info->quota_root to see
if quota is enabled or not. So while QUOTA_ENABLED is cleared in quota disabling
process, quota enable does not run, regardless of the qgroup_ioctl_lock unlock
in btrfs_quota_disable().
With this, Nikolay's suggestion looks the good idea. Will rework the patch.
--
Best Regards,
Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-14 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-01-13 10:40 [PATCH] btrfs: fix deadlock between quota disable and qgroup rescan worker Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
2022-01-13 11:41 ` David Sterba
2022-01-13 12:44 ` Nikolay Borisov
2022-01-13 12:53 ` Nikolay Borisov
2022-01-14 0:52 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2022-01-14 4:03 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki [this message]
2022-01-15 5:36 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
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=20220114040314.q46pvlcyyno2ze3d@shindev \
--to=shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com \
--cc=Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com \
--cc=damien.lemoal@opensource.wdc.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.com \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=nborisov@suse.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox