[PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Wang Shilong]

From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>

We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:

In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!

We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
with tree_log_mutex.

Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
Changelog:
	v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
	v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
---
 fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
 fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
@@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
 	}
 
 
+	mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
 	mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
 	dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
 	if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
@@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
 	atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
 	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
 
+	/*
+	 * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
+	 * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
+	 * when updating last_trans_commited.
+	 */
 	if (!is_dev_replace) {
-		/*
-		 * by holding device list mutex, we can
-		 * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
-		 */
 		ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
 	}
 	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
+	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
 
 	if (!ret)
 		ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
@@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
 		goto cleanup_transaction;
 	}
 
+	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
+
+	/*
+	 * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
+	 * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
+	 * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
+	 * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
+	 */
+	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
+
 	/*
 	 * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
 	 * to go about their business
 	 */
 	mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
 
-	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
-
-	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
 	/*
 	 * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
 	 * which can change it.
-- 
1.8.4

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Liu Bo]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:33:39AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> 
> We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
> 
> In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
> writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
> and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
> 
> We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
> with tree_log_mutex.
> 
> Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
> 	v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
> 	v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
> ---
>  fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
>  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>  	}
>  
>  
> +	mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>  	mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>  	dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
>  	if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
> @@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>  	atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
> +	 * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
> +	 * when updating last_trans_commited.
> +	 */
>  	if (!is_dev_replace) {
> -		/*
> -		 * by holding device list mutex, we can
> -		 * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
> -		 */
>  		ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
>  	}
>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);

IIRC, we already have btrfs_scrub_{pause, continue}() to avoid race
situations between committing transaction and scrub processes, why not use that
instead?

(Actually I don't like adding another lock unless it's been proved necessary
and correct with lockdep.)

thanks,
-liubo

>  
>  	if (!ret)
>  		ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> @@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>  		goto cleanup_transaction;
>  	}
>  
> +	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
> +	 * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
> +	 * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
> +	 * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
> +	 */
> +	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
> +
>  	/*
>  	 * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
>  	 * to go about their business
>  	 */
>  	mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>  
> -	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> -
> -	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>  	/*
>  	 * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
>  	 * which can change it.
> -- 
> 1.8.4
> 
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Wang Shilong]

Hi Liu,

On 12/03/2013 12:57 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:33:39AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
>>
>> In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
>> writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
>> and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
>>
>> We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
>> with tree_log_mutex.
>>
>> Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> Changelog:
>> 	v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
>> 	v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
>> ---
>>   fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
>>   fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>   2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>> index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>   	}
>>   
>>   
>> +	mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>   	mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>>   	dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
>>   	if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
>> @@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>   	atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
>>   	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
>>   
>> +	/*
>> +	 * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
>> +	 * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
>> +	 * when updating last_trans_commited.
>> +	 */
>>   	if (!is_dev_replace) {
>> -		/*
>> -		 * by holding device list mutex, we can
>> -		 * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
>> -		 */
>>   		ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
>>   	}
>>   	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>> +	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> IIRC, we already have btrfs_scrub_{pause, continue}() to avoid race
> situations between committing transaction and scrub processes, why not use that
> instead?
btrfs_scrub_{pause,continue} can not stop the following case from happening:

thread 1 thread 2
|->write_supers
|->start scrub
|->using last_trans_commited(not updated yet) when scrubbing supers
generation in disk is up to date but in memory is not.
|->updating last_trans_commited

Pleae correct me if i am wrong here. :-)
>
> (Actually I don't like adding another lock unless it's been proved necessary
> and correct with lockdep.)
Right, i should test if it can pass lockdep.

Thanks for comments.
Wang
>
> thanks,
> -liubo
>
>>   
>>   	if (!ret)
>>   		ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> @@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>   		goto cleanup_transaction;
>>   	}
>>   
>> +	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>> +
>> +	/*
>> +	 * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
>> +	 * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
>> +	 * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
>> +	 * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
>> +	 */
>> +	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>> +
>>   	/*
>>   	 * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
>>   	 * to go about their business
>>   	 */
>>   	mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>   
>> -	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>> -
>> -	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>>   	/*
>>   	 * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
>>   	 * which can change it.
>> -- 
>> 1.8.4
>>
>> --
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Miao Xie]

On tue, 03 Dec 2013 13:06:34 +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hi Liu,
> 
> On 12/03/2013 12:57 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:33:39AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>
>>> We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
>>>
>>> In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
>>> writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
>>> and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
>>>
>>> We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
>>> with tree_log_mutex.
>>>
>>> Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changelog:
>>>     v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
>>>     v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
>>> ---
>>>   fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
>>>   fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>>   2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>>> index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>>> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>>       }
>>>     +    mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>>       mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>>>       dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
>>>       if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
>>> @@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>>       atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
>>>       mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
>>>   +    /*
>>> +     * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
>>> +     * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
>>> +     * when updating last_trans_commited.
>>> +     */
>>>       if (!is_dev_replace) {
>>> -        /*
>>> -         * by holding device list mutex, we can
>>> -         * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
>>> -         */
>>>           ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
>>>       }
>>>       mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>>> +    mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>> IIRC, we already have btrfs_scrub_{pause, continue}() to avoid race
>> situations between committing transaction and scrub processes, why not use that
>> instead?
> btrfs_scrub_{pause,continue} can not stop the following case from happening:
> 
> thread 1 thread 2
> |->write_supers
> |->start scrub
> |->using last_trans_commited(not updated yet) when scrubbing supers
> generation in disk is up to date but in memory is not.
> |->updating last_trans_commited
> 
> Pleae correct me if i am wrong here. :-)

Moving btrfs_finish_extent_commit() into the log mutex may make the log tasks be blocked for
a lot time.

I think the better way to fix is prevent the scrubber from starting while the transaction
is being committed.(wait scrub_pause_req == 0 before scrubbing the super block)

Thanks
Miao

>>
>> (Actually I don't like adding another lock unless it's been proved necessary
>> and correct with lockdep.)
> Right, i should test if it can pass lockdep.
> 
> Thanks for comments.
> Wang
>>
>> thanks,
>> -liubo
>>
>>>         if (!ret)
>>>           ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>>> index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>>> @@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>>           goto cleanup_transaction;
>>>       }
>>>   +    btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>>> +
>>> +    /*
>>> +     * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
>>> +     * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
>>> +     * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
>>> +     * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
>>> +     */
>>> +    root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>>> +
>>>       /*
>>>        * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
>>>        * to go about their business
>>>        */
>>>       mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>>   -    btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>>> -
>>> -    root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>>>       /*
>>>        * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
>>>        * which can change it.
>>> -- 
>>> 1.8.4
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Liu Bo]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:06:34PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> Hi Liu,
> 
> On 12/03/2013 12:57 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
> >On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:33:39AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
> >>From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >>
> >>We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
> >>
> >>In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
> >>writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
> >>and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
> >>
> >>We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
> >>with tree_log_mutex.
> >>
> >>Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
> >>Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >>---
> >>Changelog:
> >>	v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
> >>	v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
> >>---
> >>  fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
> >>  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
> >>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >>
> >>diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> >>index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
> >>--- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> >>+++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> >>@@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
> >>  	}
> >>+	mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> >>  	mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
> >>  	dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
> >>  	if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
> >>@@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
> >>  	atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
> >>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
> >>+	/*
> >>+	 * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
> >>+	 * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
> >>+	 * when updating last_trans_commited.
> >>+	 */
> >>  	if (!is_dev_replace) {
> >>-		/*
> >>-		 * by holding device list mutex, we can
> >>-		 * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
> >>-		 */
> >>  		ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
> >>  	}
> >>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
> >>+	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> >IIRC, we already have btrfs_scrub_{pause, continue}() to avoid race
> >situations between committing transaction and scrub processes, why not use that
> >instead?
> btrfs_scrub_{pause,continue} can not stop the following case from happening:
> 
> thread 1 thread 2
> |->write_supers
> |->start scrub
> |->using last_trans_commited(not updated yet) when scrubbing supers
> generation in disk is up to date but in memory is not.
> |->updating last_trans_commited
> 
> Pleae correct me if i am wrong here. :-)

One possible way is to check @scrub_pause_req inside scrub_supers(),
before starting the real scrubing super work.

scrub_super()
{
	while (scrub_pause_req)
		wait for (scrub_pause_req == 0);

	...
}

As we have a atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running) before scrub_supers(),
it'd force committing transaction to wait for scrub if the scrub process
is the former one in timeline.

thanks,
-liubo

> >
> >(Actually I don't like adding another lock unless it's been proved necessary
> >and correct with lockdep.)
> Right, i should test if it can pass lockdep.
> 
> Thanks for comments.
> Wang
> >
> >thanks,
> >-liubo
> >
> >>  	if (!ret)
> >>  		ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
> >>diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >>index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
> >>--- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >>+++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> >>@@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
> >>  		goto cleanup_transaction;
> >>  	}
> >>+	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> >>+
> >>+	/*
> >>+	 * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
> >>+	 * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
> >>+	 * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
> >>+	 * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
> >>+	 */
> >>+	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
> >>+
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
> >>  	 * to go about their business
> >>  	 */
> >>  	mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
> >>-	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> >>-
> >>-	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
> >>  	/*
> >>  	 * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
> >>  	 * which can change it.
> >>-- 
> >>1.8.4
> >>
> >>--
> >>To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> >>the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> >>More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Miao Xie]

On 	tue, 3 Dec 2013 14:08:24 +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:06:34PM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> Hi Liu,
>>
>> On 12/03/2013 12:57 PM, Liu Bo wrote:
>>> On Tue, Dec 03, 2013 at 01:33:39AM +0800, Wang Shilong wrote:
>>>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>>
>>>> We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
>>>>
>>>> In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
>>>> writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
>>>> and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
>>>>
>>>> We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
>>>> with tree_log_mutex.
>>>>
>>>> Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changelog:
>>>> 	v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
>>>> 	v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
>>>> ---
>>>>  fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
>>>>  fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>>>  2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>>>> index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>>>> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>>>  	}
>>>> +	mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>>>  	mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>>>>  	dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
>>>>  	if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
>>>> @@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>>>  	atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
>>>>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
>>>> +	 * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
>>>> +	 * when updating last_trans_commited.
>>>> +	 */
>>>>  	if (!is_dev_replace) {
>>>> -		/*
>>>> -		 * by holding device list mutex, we can
>>>> -		 * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
>>>> -		 */
>>>>  		ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
>>>>  	}
>>>>  	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>>>> +	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>> IIRC, we already have btrfs_scrub_{pause, continue}() to avoid race
>>> situations between committing transaction and scrub processes, why not use that
>>> instead?
>> btrfs_scrub_{pause,continue} can not stop the following case from happening:
>>
>> thread 1 thread 2
>> |->write_supers
>> |->start scrub
>> |->using last_trans_commited(not updated yet) when scrubbing supers
>> generation in disk is up to date but in memory is not.
>> |->updating last_trans_commited
>>
>> Pleae correct me if i am wrong here. :-)
> 
> One possible way is to check @scrub_pause_req inside scrub_supers(),
> before starting the real scrubing super work.
> 
> scrub_super()
> {
> 	while (scrub_pause_req)
> 		wait for (scrub_pause_req == 0);
> 
> 	...
> }
> 
> As we have a atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running) before scrub_supers(),
> it'd force committing transaction to wait for scrub if the scrub process
> is the former one in timeline.

Great minds think alike!

Thanks
Miao

> 
> thanks,
> -liubo
> 
>>>
>>> (Actually I don't like adding another lock unless it's been proved necessary
>>> and correct with lockdep.)
>> Right, i should test if it can pass lockdep.
>>
>> Thanks for comments.
>> Wang
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -liubo
>>>
>>>>  	if (!ret)
>>>>  		ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
>>>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>>>> index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>>>> @@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>>>  		goto cleanup_transaction;
>>>>  	}
>>>> +	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>>>> +
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
>>>> +	 * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
>>>> +	 * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
>>>> +	 * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>>>> +
>>>>  	/*
>>>>  	 * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
>>>>  	 * to go about their business
>>>>  	 */
>>>>  	mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>>> -	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>>>> -
>>>> -	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>>>>  	/*
>>>>  	 * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
>>>>  	 * which can change it.
>>>> -- 
>>>> 1.8.4
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
>>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> 

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Sebastian Ochmann]

Hello,

I know, the discussion on how to fix the problem best is still on-going, 
but I wanted to add that I tried v3 of the patch against btrfs-next on 
my machine. Without the patch, I was able to reproduce the problem 
within a few minutes; after applying it, I wasn't able to trigger it for 
50 minutes now.

I can't tell whether the problem would reoccur when running my little 
test for another week or so, but I can tell that my machine did not 
catch fire either. So it seems like you're on the right track. :)

I can also try another version of the patch when it becomes available.

Thanks,
Sebastian

On 02.12.2013 18:33, Wang Shilong wrote:
> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>
> We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
>
> In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
> writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
> and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
>
> We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating last_trans_commited
> with tree_log_mutex.
>
> Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
> Changelog:
> 	v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
> 	v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
> ---
>   fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
>   fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>   2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>   	}
>
>
> +	mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>   	mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>   	dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
>   	if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
> @@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>   	atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
>   	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
>
> +	/*
> +	 * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
> +	 * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
> +	 * when updating last_trans_commited.
> +	 */
>   	if (!is_dev_replace) {
> -		/*
> -		 * by holding device list mutex, we can
> -		 * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
> -		 */
>   		ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
>   	}
>   	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
> +	mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>
>   	if (!ret)
>   		ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
> @@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>   		goto cleanup_transaction;
>   	}
>
> +	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
> +	 * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
> +	 * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
> +	 * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
> +	 */
> +	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
> +
>   	/*
>   	 * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
>   	 * to go about their business
>   	 */
>   	mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>
> -	btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
> -
> -	root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>   	/*
>   	 * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
>   	 * which can change it.
>

Re: [PATCH v3] Btrfs: fix wrong super generation mismatch when scrubbing supers

[Wang Shilong]

On 12/04/2013 03:14 AM, Sebastian Ochmann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know, the discussion on how to fix the problem best is still 
> on-going, but I wanted to add that I tried v3 of the patch against 
> btrfs-next on my machine. Without the patch, I was able to reproduce 
> the problem within a few minutes; after applying it, I wasn't able to 
> trigger it for 50 minutes now.
>
> I can't tell whether the problem would reoccur when running my little 
> test for another week or so, but I can tell that my machine did not 
> catch fire either. So it seems like you're on the right track. :)
>
> I can also try another version of the patch when it becomes available.

Thanks very much, new patch will be sent later.:-)

Thanks,
Wang
>
> Thanks,
> Sebastian
>
> On 02.12.2013 18:33, Wang Shilong wrote:
>> From: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>>
>> We came a race condition when scrubbing superblocks, the story is:
>>
>> In commiting transaction, we will update last_trans_commited after
>> writting superblocks. if a scrub start after writting superblocks
>> and before last_trans_commited, generation mismatch happens!
>>
>> We fix it by protecting writting superblock and updating 
>> last_trans_commited
>> with tree_log_mutex.
>>
>> Reported-by: Sebastian Ochmann <ochmann@informatik.uni-bonn.de>
>> Signed-off-by: Wang Shilong <wangsl.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> Changelog:
>>     v2->v3:move tree_log_mutex out of device_list_mutex.
>>     v1->v2: use right way to fix the problem.
>> ---
>>   fs/btrfs/scrub.c       | 11 +++++++----
>>   fs/btrfs/transaction.c | 13 ++++++++++---
>>   2 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>> index 561e2f1..a9ed102 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/scrub.c
>> @@ -2887,6 +2887,7 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info 
>> *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>       }
>>
>>
>> +    mutex_lock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>> mutex_lock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>>       dev = btrfs_find_device(fs_info, devid, NULL, NULL);
>>       if (!dev || (dev->missing && !is_dev_replace)) {
>> @@ -2932,14 +2933,16 @@ int btrfs_scrub_dev(struct btrfs_fs_info 
>> *fs_info, u64 devid, u64 start,
>>       atomic_inc(&fs_info->scrubs_running);
>>       mutex_unlock(&fs_info->scrub_lock);
>>
>> +    /*
>> +     * holding tree_log_mutex we can avoid generation mismatch while
>> +     * scrubbing superblocks, see comments in commiting transaction
>> +     * when updating last_trans_commited.
>> +     */
>>       if (!is_dev_replace) {
>> -        /*
>> -         * by holding device list mutex, we can
>> -         * kick off writing super in log tree sync.
>> -         */
>>           ret = scrub_supers(sctx, dev);
>>       }
>> mutex_unlock(&fs_info->fs_devices->device_list_mutex);
>> +    mutex_unlock(&fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>
>>       if (!ret)
>>           ret = scrub_enumerate_chunks(sctx, dev, start, end,
>> diff --git a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> index c6a872a..052eb22 100644
>> --- a/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> +++ b/fs/btrfs/transaction.c
>> @@ -1898,15 +1898,22 @@ int btrfs_commit_transaction(struct 
>> btrfs_trans_handle *trans,
>>           goto cleanup_transaction;
>>       }
>>
>> +    btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>> +
>> +    /*
>> +     * we must gurantee last_trans_commited update is protected by
>> +     * tree_log_mutex with write_ctree_super together, otherwise,
>> +     * scubbing super will come in before updating last_trans_commited
>> +     * and we will get generation mismatch when scrubbing superblocks.
>> +     */
>> +    root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>> +
>>       /*
>>        * the super is written, we can safely allow the tree-loggers
>>        * to go about their business
>>        */
>>       mutex_unlock(&root->fs_info->tree_log_mutex);
>>
>> -    btrfs_finish_extent_commit(trans, root);
>> -
>> -    root->fs_info->last_trans_committed = cur_trans->transid;
>>       /*
>>        * We needn't acquire the lock here because there is no other task
>>        * which can change it.
>>
>
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>