From: Sidong Yang <realwakka@gmail.com>
To: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.com>
Cc: "dsterba@suse.cz" <dsterba@suse.cz>,
"linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org" <linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org>,
Naohiro Aota <Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com>,
Johannes Thumshirn <Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com>,
Damien Le Moal <Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] btrfs: qgroup: fix deadlock between rescan worker and remove qgroup
Date: Sat, 26 Feb 2022 10:15:22 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20220226101522.GA16065@realwakka> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20220225143821.ut4fghtxztresbpc@shindev>
On Fri, Feb 25, 2022 at 02:38:23PM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2022 / 08:49, Sidong Yang wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 07:48:03PM +0100, David Sterba wrote:
> >
> > Hi, David.
> > Thanks for reply.
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 09:51:13AM +0000, Sidong Yang wrote:
> > > > The patch e804861bd4e6 by Kawasaki
> > >
> > > Added to CC
> >
> > Thanks, I'll add CC for next patch.
>
> Hi Sidong, David, thank you for letting me know.
Hi, Thanks for comments.
>
> > >
> > > > resolves deadlock between quota
> > > > disable and qgroup rescan worker. but also there is a deadlock case like
> > > > it. It's about enabling or disabling quota and creating or removing
> > > > qgroup. It can be reproduced in simple script below.
> > > >
> > > > for i in {1..100}
> > > > do
> > > > btrfs quota enable /mnt &
> > > > btrfs qgroup create 1/0 /mnt &
> > > > btrfs qgroup destroy 1/0 /mnt &
> > > > btrfs quota disable /mnt &
> > > > done
> > > >
> > > > This script simply enables quota and creates/destroies qgroup and disables
> > > > qgroup 100 times. Enabling quota starts rescan worker and it commits
> > > > transaction and wait in wait_for_commit(). transaction_kthread would
> > > > wakup for the commit and try to attach trasaction but there would be
> > > > another current transaction. The transaction was from another command
> > > > that destroy qgroup. but destroying qgroup could be blocked by
> > > > qgroup_ioctl_lock which locked by the thread disabling quota.
> > >
> > > That looks like the cause.
> >
> > I agree.
>
> I ran the simple script, recreated the deadlock on my machine, and took a look
> in the deadlock detail. I think the deadlock happens as Sidong's explanation.
>
> > >
> > > > An example report of the deadlock:
> > > >
> > > > [ 363.661448] INFO: task kworker/u16:4:295 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > > [ 363.661582] Not tainted 5.17.0-rc4+ #16
> > > > [ 363.661659] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > > [ 363.661744] task:kworker/u16:4 state:D stack: 0 pid: 295 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000
> > > > [ 363.661762] Workqueue: btrfs-qgroup-rescan btrfs_work_helper [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.661936] Call Trace:
> > > > [ 363.661949] <TASK>
> > > > [ 363.661958] __schedule+0x2e5/0xbb0
> > > > [ 363.662002] ? btrfs_free_path+0x27/0x30 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.662094] ? mutex_lock+0x13/0x40
> > > > [ 363.662106] schedule+0x58/0xd0
> > > > [ 363.662116] btrfs_commit_transaction+0x2dc/0xb40 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.662250] ? wait_woken+0x60/0x60
> > > > [ 363.662271] btrfs_qgroup_rescan_worker+0x3cb/0x600 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.662419] btrfs_work_helper+0xc8/0x330 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.662551] process_one_work+0x21a/0x3f0
> > > > [ 363.662588] worker_thread+0x4a/0x3b0
> > > > [ 363.662600] ? process_one_work+0x3f0/0x3f0
> > > > [ 363.662609] kthread+0xfd/0x130
> > > > [ 363.662618] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
> > > > [ 363.662628] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> > > > [ 363.662659] </TASK>
> > > > [ 363.662691] INFO: task btrfs-transacti:1158 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > > [ 363.662765] Not tainted 5.17.0-rc4+ #16
> > > > [ 363.662809] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > > [ 363.662880] task:btrfs-transacti state:D stack: 0 pid: 1158 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000
> > > > [ 363.662889] Call Trace:
> > > > [ 363.662892] <TASK>
> > > > [ 363.662896] __schedule+0x2e5/0xbb0
> > > > [ 363.662906] ? _raw_spin_lock_irqsave+0x2a/0x60
> > > > [ 363.662925] schedule+0x58/0xd0
> > > > [ 363.662942] wait_current_trans+0xd2/0x130 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.663046] ? wait_woken+0x60/0x60
> > > > [ 363.663055] start_transaction+0x33c/0x600 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.663159] btrfs_attach_transaction+0x1d/0x20 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.663268] transaction_kthread+0xb5/0x1b0 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.663368] ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction+0x580/0x580 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.663465] kthread+0xfd/0x130
> > > > [ 363.663475] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
> > > > [ 363.663484] ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
> > > > [ 363.663498] </TASK>
> > > > [ 363.663503] INFO: task btrfs:81196 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > > [ 363.663568] Not tainted 5.17.0-rc4+ #16
> > > > [ 363.663612] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > > [ 363.663693] task:btrfs state:D stack: 0 pid:81196 ppid: 1 flags:0x00000000
> > > > [ 363.663702] Call Trace:
> > > > [ 363.663705] <TASK>
> > > > [ 363.663709] __schedule+0x2e5/0xbb0
> > > > [ 363.663721] schedule+0x58/0xd0
> > > > [ 363.663729] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x310/0x5b0
> > > > [ 363.663748] ? __check_object_size+0x130/0x150
> > > > [ 363.663770] down_write+0x41/0x50
> > > > [ 363.663780] btrfs_ioctl+0x20e6/0x2f40 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.663918] ? debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x20
> > > > [ 363.663932] ? fpregs_assert_state_consistent+0x23/0x50
> > > > [ 363.663963] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x8e/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.663981] ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x8e/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.663990] do_syscall_64+0x38/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.663998] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > > > [ 363.664006] RIP: 0033:0x7f1082add50b
> > > > [ 363.664014] RSP: 002b:00007fffbfd1ba98 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > > > [ 363.664022] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f1082add50b
> > > > [ 363.664028] RDX: 00007fffbfd1bab0 RSI: 00000000c0109428 RDI: 0000000000000003
> > > > [ 363.664032] RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 000055e4263142a0 R09: 000000000000007c
> > > > [ 363.664036] R10: 00007f1082bb1be0 R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 00007fffbfd1c723
> > > > [ 363.664040] R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 000055e42615408d R15: 00007fffbfd1bc68
> > > > [ 363.664049] </TASK>
> > > > [ 363.664053] INFO: task btrfs:81197 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > > [ 363.664117] Not tainted 5.17.0-rc4+ #16
> > > > [ 363.664160] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > > [ 363.664231] task:btrfs state:D stack: 0 pid:81197 ppid: 1 flags:0x00000000
> > > > [ 363.664239] Call Trace:
> > > > [ 363.664241] <TASK>
> > > > [ 363.664245] __schedule+0x2e5/0xbb0
> > > > [ 363.664257] schedule+0x58/0xd0
> > > > [ 363.664265] rwsem_down_write_slowpath+0x310/0x5b0
> > > > [ 363.664274] ? __check_object_size+0x130/0x150
> > > > [ 363.664282] down_write+0x41/0x50
> > > > [ 363.664292] btrfs_ioctl+0x20e6/0x2f40 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.664430] ? debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x20
> > > > [ 363.664442] ? fpregs_assert_state_consistent+0x23/0x50
> > > > [ 363.664453] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x8e/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.664462] ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x8e/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.664470] do_syscall_64+0x38/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.664478] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > > > [ 363.664484] RIP: 0033:0x7ff1752ac50b
> > > > [ 363.664489] RSP: 002b:00007ffc0cb56eb8 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > > > [ 363.664495] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007ff1752ac50b
> > > > [ 363.664500] RDX: 00007ffc0cb56ed0 RSI: 00000000c0109428 RDI: 0000000000000003
> > > > [ 363.664503] RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 000055d0dcf182a0 R09: 000000000000007c
> > > > [ 363.664507] R10: 00007ff175380be0 R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 00007ffc0cb58723
> > > > [ 363.664520] R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 000055d0db04708d R15: 00007ffc0cb57088
> > > > [ 363.664528] </TASK>
> > > > [ 363.664532] INFO: task btrfs:81204 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > > [ 363.664596] Not tainted 5.17.0-rc4+ #16
> > > > [ 363.664639] "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message.
> > > > [ 363.664710] task:btrfs state:D stack: 0 pid:81204 ppid: 1 flags:0x00004000
> > > > [ 363.664717] Call Trace:
> > > > [ 363.664720] <TASK>
> > > > [ 363.664723] __schedule+0x2e5/0xbb0
> > > > [ 363.664735] schedule+0x58/0xd0
> > > > [ 363.664743] schedule_timeout+0x1f3/0x290
> > > > [ 363.664754] ? __mutex_lock.isra.0+0x8f/0x4c0
> > > > [ 363.664765] wait_for_completion+0x8b/0xf0
> > > > [ 363.664776] btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion+0x62/0x70 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.664995] btrfs_quota_disable+0x51/0x320 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.665136] btrfs_ioctl+0x2106/0x2f40 [btrfs]
> > > > [ 363.665385] ? debug_smp_processor_id+0x17/0x20
> > > > [ 363.665402] ? fpregs_assert_state_consistent+0x23/0x50
> > > > [ 363.665417] __x64_sys_ioctl+0x8e/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.665428] ? __x64_sys_ioctl+0x8e/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.665439] do_syscall_64+0x38/0xc0
> > > > [ 363.665450] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
> > > > [ 363.665459] RIP: 0033:0x7f9d7462050b
> > > > [ 363.665466] RSP: 002b:00007ffc1de68558 EFLAGS: 00000206 ORIG_RAX: 0000000000000010
> > > > [ 363.665475] RAX: ffffffffffffffda RBX: 0000000000000000 RCX: 00007f9d7462050b
> > > > [ 363.665480] RDX: 00007ffc1de68570 RSI: 00000000c0109428 RDI: 0000000000000003
> > > > [ 363.665486] RBP: 0000000000000003 R08: 00005629e953b2a0 R09: 000000000000007c
> > > > [ 363.665492] R10: 00007f9d746f4be0 R11: 0000000000000206 R12: 00007ffc1de69723
> > > > [ 363.665498] R13: 0000000000000001 R14: 00005629e8e5708d R15: 00007ffc1de68728
> > > > [ 363.665510] </TASK>
> > > >
> > > > To resolve this issue, The thread disabling quota should unlock
> > > > qgroup_ioctl_lock before waiting rescan completion. This patch moves
> > > > btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion() after qgroup_ioctl_lock().
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Sidong Yang <realwakka@gmail.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > Hi, I found some deadlock bug with testing a simple script.
> > > > With this patch, it seems that it resolves it. but I don't know much about how
> > > > transaction works. and I'm afraid that it has other side effects.
> > >
> > > I had a quick look and did not see anything obvious, the qgroup waiting
> > > is done in onther contexts without any apparent conditions or other
> > > restrictions.
> >
> > Yeah, I think it doesn't have side effects so far. But actually as a
> > newbie, I didn't understood correctly that you said. I guess what you
> > said is that there is no other cases that locks qgroup_ioctl_lock and
> > thread removing qgroup goes deadlock again. It is right?
> >
> > >
> > > > ---
> > > > fs/btrfs/qgroup.c | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> > > > index 2c0dd6b8a80c..85e5b3572dda 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/qgroup.c
> > > > @@ -1219,8 +1219,8 @@ int btrfs_quota_disable(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info)
> > > > * deadlock with transaction by the qgroup rescan worker.
> > > > */
> > > > clear_bit(BTRFS_FS_QUOTA_ENABLED, &fs_info->flags);
> > > > - btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion(fs_info, false);
> > > > mutex_unlock(&fs_info->qgroup_ioctl_lock);
> > > > + btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion(fs_info, false);
> > >
> > > Yeah waiting with a mutex held can lead to problems unless the locks are
> > > compatible in that way.
>
> Yes, I missed that point... I put the btrfs_qgroup_wait_for_completion() call
> within qgroup_ioctl_lock guard expecting it would avoid qgroup rescan worker
> start by quota enable ioctl. But, now I don't think such guard is required.
> Both quota enable and quota disable ioctls are guarded by fs_info->subvol_sem.
> On top of that, qgroup_rescan_init() checks BTRFS_FS_QUOTA_ENABLED bit before
> starting rescan workers.
I understood. fs_info->subvol_sem would guard quota enable/disable
ioctls.
>
> >
> > I think this lock is needed for checking quota_root. Is it better that
> > unlock right after checking it? It would make shorter ciritical section.
>
> Agreed. Since clear_bit() is atomic, it can move out of the qgroup_ioctl_lock
> guard, I think.
Yeah, I'll apply it for next version.
>
> With these changes, I ran the simple script and confirmed the deadlock
> disappeared, as Sidong reported.
Thanks,
Sidong
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Shin'ichiro Kawasaki
prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-02-26 10:15 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-02-23 9:51 [RFC PATCH] btrfs: qgroup: fix deadlock between rescan worker and remove qgroup Sidong Yang
2022-02-24 18:48 ` David Sterba
2022-02-25 8:49 ` Sidong Yang
2022-02-25 14:38 ` Shinichiro Kawasaki
2022-02-26 10:15 ` Sidong Yang [this message]
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=20220226101522.GA16065@realwakka \
--to=realwakka@gmail.com \
--cc=Damien.LeMoal@wdc.com \
--cc=Johannes.Thumshirn@wdc.com \
--cc=Naohiro.Aota@wdc.com \
--cc=dsterba@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=shinichiro.kawasaki@wdc.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