* [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO @ 2016-07-07 4:49 Chao Yu 2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2016-07-07 4:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: jaegeuk; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will face race case as below: For write case: Thread A Thread B - generic_file_direct_write - invalidate_inode_pages2_range - f2fs_direct_IO - do_blockdev_direct_IO - do_direct_IO - get_more_blocks - f2fs_gc - do_garbage_collect - gc_data_segment - move_data_page - do_write_data_page migrate data block to new block address - dio_bio_submit update user data to old block address For read case: Thread A Thread B - generic_file_direct_write - invalidate_inode_pages2_range - f2fs_direct_IO - do_blockdev_direct_IO - do_direct_IO - get_more_blocks - f2fs_balance_fs - f2fs_gc - do_garbage_collect - gc_data_segment - move_data_page - do_write_data_page migrate data block to new block address - write_checkpoint - do_checkpoint - clear_prefree_segments - f2fs_issue_discard discard old block adress - dio_bio_submit update user buffer from obsolete block address In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion against with each other. Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> --- v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio. fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++ fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 + 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) { struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping; struct inode *inode = mapping->host; + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; int err; @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter)); + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio); + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); + if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { if (err > 0) set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE); diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info { struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */ struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */ struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */ + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */ }; static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext, diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step: /* phase 3 */ inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino); if (inode) { + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); + bool locked = false; + + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) { + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem)) + continue; + locked = true; + } + start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode) + ofs_in_node; if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx); else move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type); + + if (locked) + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem); + stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type); } } diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb) INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list); INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages); mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock); + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem); /* Will be used by directory only */ fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level; -- 2.7.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape ^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO 2016-07-07 4:49 [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO Chao Yu @ 2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-08 3:19 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel Hi Chao, Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013? [ 502.480850] ====================================================== [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE [ 502.480886] ------------------------------------------------------- [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock: [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 [ 502.480948] [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock: [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] [ 502.481003] [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock. [ 502.481003] [ 502.481018] [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: [ 502.481030] [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}: [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0 [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160 [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0 [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs] [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140 [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0 [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0 [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 [ 502.481236] [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}: [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940 [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0 [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40 [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs] [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0 [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130 [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140 [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0 [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 [ 502.481445] [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this: [ 502.481445] [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario: [ 502.481459] [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1 [ 502.481987] ---- ---- [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); [ 502.483285] [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK *** [ 502.483285] [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729: [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] Thanks, On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > > Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will > face race case as below: > > For write case: > Thread A Thread B > - generic_file_direct_write > - invalidate_inode_pages2_range > - f2fs_direct_IO > - do_blockdev_direct_IO > - do_direct_IO > - get_more_blocks > - f2fs_gc > - do_garbage_collect > - gc_data_segment > - move_data_page > - do_write_data_page > migrate data block to new block address > - dio_bio_submit > update user data to old block address > > For read case: > Thread A Thread B > - generic_file_direct_write > - invalidate_inode_pages2_range > - f2fs_direct_IO > - do_blockdev_direct_IO > - do_direct_IO > - get_more_blocks > - f2fs_balance_fs > - f2fs_gc > - do_garbage_collect > - gc_data_segment > - move_data_page > - do_write_data_page > migrate data block to new block address > - write_checkpoint > - do_checkpoint > - clear_prefree_segments > - f2fs_issue_discard > discard old block adress > - dio_bio_submit > update user buffer from obsolete block address > > In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion > against with each other. > > Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > --- > v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio. > fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++ > fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + > fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 + > 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c > index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c > @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) > { > struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping; > struct inode *inode = mapping->host; > + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); > size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); > loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; > int err; > @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) > > trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter)); > > + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); > err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio); > + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); > + > if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { > if (err > 0) > set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE); > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info { > struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */ > struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */ > struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */ > + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */ > }; > > static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext, > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step: > /* phase 3 */ > inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino); > if (inode) { > + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); > + bool locked = false; > + > + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) { > + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem)) > + continue; > + locked = true; > + } > + > start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode) > + ofs_in_node; > if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) > move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx); > else > move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type); > + > + if (locked) > + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem); > + > stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type); > } > } > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c > index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644 > --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c > +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb) > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages); > mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock); > + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem); > > /* Will be used by directory only */ > fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level; > -- > 2.7.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO 2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu 2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2016-07-08 15:50 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel Hi Jaegeuk, On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > Hi Chao, > > Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013? > > [ 502.480850] ====================================================== > [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE > [ 502.480886] ------------------------------------------------------- > [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock: > [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 > [ 502.480948] > [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock: > [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > [ 502.481003] > [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock. > [ 502.481003] > [ 502.481018] > [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > [ 502.481030] > [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}: > [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 > [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0 > [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160 > [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0 > [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs] > [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140 > [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0 > [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0 > [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 > [ 502.481236] > [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}: > [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940 > [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 > [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0 > [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 > [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40 > [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs] > [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0 > [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130 > [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140 > [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0 > [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 > [ 502.481445] > [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this: > [ 502.481445] > [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > [ 502.481459] > [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1 > [ 502.481987] ---- ---- > [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); > [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); > [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); > [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock: writer reader - f2fs_file_write_iter - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) - __generic_file_write_iter - generic_file_direct_write - f2fs_direct_IO - generic_file_read_iter - f2fs_direct_IO - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) - __blockdev_direct_IO - do_blockdev_direct_IO - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to avoid deadlock? Thanks, > [ 502.483285] > [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK *** > [ 502.483285] > [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729: > [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > > Thanks, > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >> >> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will >> face race case as below: >> >> For write case: >> Thread A Thread B >> - generic_file_direct_write >> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range >> - f2fs_direct_IO >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO >> - do_direct_IO >> - get_more_blocks >> - f2fs_gc >> - do_garbage_collect >> - gc_data_segment >> - move_data_page >> - do_write_data_page >> migrate data block to new block address >> - dio_bio_submit >> update user data to old block address >> >> For read case: >> Thread A Thread B >> - generic_file_direct_write >> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range >> - f2fs_direct_IO >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO >> - do_direct_IO >> - get_more_blocks >> - f2fs_balance_fs >> - f2fs_gc >> - do_garbage_collect >> - gc_data_segment >> - move_data_page >> - do_write_data_page >> migrate data block to new block address >> - write_checkpoint >> - do_checkpoint >> - clear_prefree_segments >> - f2fs_issue_discard >> discard old block adress >> - dio_bio_submit >> update user buffer from obsolete block address >> >> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion >> against with each other. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >> --- >> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio. >> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++ >> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + >> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 + >> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) >> >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c >> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c >> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) >> { >> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping; >> struct inode *inode = mapping->host; >> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); >> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); >> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; >> int err; >> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) >> >> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter)); >> >> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); >> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio); >> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); >> + >> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { >> if (err > 0) >> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE); >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info { >> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */ >> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */ >> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */ >> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */ >> }; >> >> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext, >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step: >> /* phase 3 */ >> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino); >> if (inode) { >> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); >> + bool locked = false; >> + >> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) { >> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem)) >> + continue; >> + locked = true; >> + } >> + >> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode) >> + ofs_in_node; >> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) >> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx); >> else >> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type); >> + >> + if (locked) >> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem); >> + >> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type); >> } >> } >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c >> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644 >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c >> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb) >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list); >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages); >> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock); >> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem); >> >> /* Will be used by directory only */ >> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level; >> -- >> 2.7.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO 2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu @ 2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-09 16:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-f2fs-devel On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:50:02PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > Hi Jaegeuk, > > On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > Hi Chao, > > > > Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013? > > > > [ 502.480850] ====================================================== > > [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > > [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE > > [ 502.480886] ------------------------------------------------------- > > [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock: > > [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 > > [ 502.480948] > > [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock: > > [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > > [ 502.481003] > > [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock. > > [ 502.481003] > > [ 502.481018] > > [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > > [ 502.481030] > > [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}: > > [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 > > [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0 > > [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > > [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160 > > [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0 > > [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs] > > [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140 > > [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0 > > [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0 > > [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 > > [ 502.481236] > > [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}: > > [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940 > > [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 > > [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0 > > [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 > > [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40 > > [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs] > > [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0 > > [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130 > > [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140 > > [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0 > > [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 > > [ 502.481445] > > [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this: > > [ 502.481445] > > [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > > [ 502.481459] > > [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1 > > [ 502.481987] ---- ---- > > [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); > > [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); > > [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); > > [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); > > Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock: > > writer reader > - f2fs_file_write_iter > - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) > - __generic_file_write_iter > - generic_file_direct_write > - f2fs_direct_IO > - generic_file_read_iter > - f2fs_direct_IO > - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) > - __blockdev_direct_IO > - do_blockdev_direct_IO > - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) > > - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) > > What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to > avoid deadlock? Hmm, how about inode_trylock in GC? > > Thanks, > > > [ 502.483285] > > [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK *** > > [ 502.483285] > > [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729: > > [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > > > > Thanks, > > > > On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > >> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >> > >> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will > >> face race case as below: > >> > >> For write case: > >> Thread A Thread B > >> - generic_file_direct_write > >> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range > >> - f2fs_direct_IO > >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO > >> - do_direct_IO > >> - get_more_blocks > >> - f2fs_gc > >> - do_garbage_collect > >> - gc_data_segment > >> - move_data_page > >> - do_write_data_page > >> migrate data block to new block address > >> - dio_bio_submit > >> update user data to old block address > >> > >> For read case: > >> Thread A Thread B > >> - generic_file_direct_write > >> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range > >> - f2fs_direct_IO > >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO > >> - do_direct_IO > >> - get_more_blocks > >> - f2fs_balance_fs > >> - f2fs_gc > >> - do_garbage_collect > >> - gc_data_segment > >> - move_data_page > >> - do_write_data_page > >> migrate data block to new block address > >> - write_checkpoint > >> - do_checkpoint > >> - clear_prefree_segments > >> - f2fs_issue_discard > >> discard old block adress > >> - dio_bio_submit > >> update user buffer from obsolete block address > >> > >> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion > >> against with each other. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >> --- > >> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio. > >> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++ > >> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + > >> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 + > >> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c > >> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644 > >> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c > >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c > >> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) > >> { > >> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping; > >> struct inode *inode = mapping->host; > >> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); > >> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); > >> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; > >> int err; > >> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) > >> > >> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter)); > >> > >> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio); > >> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >> + > >> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { > >> if (err > 0) > >> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE); > >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644 > >> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info { > >> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */ > >> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */ > >> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */ > >> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */ > >> }; > >> > >> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext, > >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644 > >> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step: > >> /* phase 3 */ > >> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino); > >> if (inode) { > >> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); > >> + bool locked = false; > >> + > >> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) { > >> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem)) > >> + continue; > >> + locked = true; > >> + } > >> + > >> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode) > >> + ofs_in_node; > >> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) > >> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx); > >> else > >> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type); > >> + > >> + if (locked) > >> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >> + > >> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type); > >> } > >> } > >> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644 > >> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c > >> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb) > >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list); > >> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages); > >> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock); > >> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >> > >> /* Will be used by directory only */ > >> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level; > >> -- > >> 2.7.2 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO 2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu 2016-07-12 17:09 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 1 reply; 6+ messages in thread From: Chao Yu @ 2016-07-12 1:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jaegeuk Kim, Chao Yu; +Cc: linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On 2016/7/10 0:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:50:02PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >> Hi Jaegeuk, >> >> On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: >>> Hi Chao, >>> >>> Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013? >>> >>> [ 502.480850] ====================================================== >>> [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] >>> [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE >>> [ 502.480886] ------------------------------------------------------- >>> [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock: >>> [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 >>> [ 502.480948] >>> [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock: >>> [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] >>> [ 502.481003] >>> [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock. >>> [ 502.481003] >>> [ 502.481018] >>> [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: >>> [ 502.481030] >>> [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}: >>> [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 >>> [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0 >>> [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] >>> [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160 >>> [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0 >>> [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs] >>> [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140 >>> [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0 >>> [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0 >>> [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 >>> [ 502.481236] >>> [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}: >>> [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940 >>> [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 >>> [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0 >>> [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 >>> [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40 >>> [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs] >>> [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0 >>> [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130 >>> [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140 >>> [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0 >>> [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 >>> [ 502.481445] >>> [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this: >>> [ 502.481445] >>> [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario: >>> [ 502.481459] >>> [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1 >>> [ 502.481987] ---- ---- >>> [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); >>> [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); >>> [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); >>> [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); >> >> Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock: >> >> writer reader >> - f2fs_file_write_iter >> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) >> - __generic_file_write_iter >> - generic_file_direct_write >> - f2fs_direct_IO >> - generic_file_read_iter >> - f2fs_direct_IO >> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) >> - __blockdev_direct_IO >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO >> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) >> >> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) >> >> What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to >> avoid deadlock? > > Hmm, how about inode_trylock in GC? If we reuse inode->i_rwsem here, we will suffer the same issue when we remove i_rwsem lock in dio writer or dio reader for better concurrency. So I think it's better to use separate lock to just fix this issue. Thanks, > >> >> Thanks, >> >>> [ 502.483285] >>> [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK *** >>> [ 502.483285] >>> [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729: >>> [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: >>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> >>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will >>>> face race case as below: >>>> >>>> For write case: >>>> Thread A Thread B >>>> - generic_file_direct_write >>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range >>>> - f2fs_direct_IO >>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO >>>> - do_direct_IO >>>> - get_more_blocks >>>> - f2fs_gc >>>> - do_garbage_collect >>>> - gc_data_segment >>>> - move_data_page >>>> - do_write_data_page >>>> migrate data block to new block address >>>> - dio_bio_submit >>>> update user data to old block address >>>> >>>> For read case: >>>> Thread A Thread B >>>> - generic_file_direct_write >>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range >>>> - f2fs_direct_IO >>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO >>>> - do_direct_IO >>>> - get_more_blocks >>>> - f2fs_balance_fs >>>> - f2fs_gc >>>> - do_garbage_collect >>>> - gc_data_segment >>>> - move_data_page >>>> - do_write_data_page >>>> migrate data block to new block address >>>> - write_checkpoint >>>> - do_checkpoint >>>> - clear_prefree_segments >>>> - f2fs_issue_discard >>>> discard old block adress >>>> - dio_bio_submit >>>> update user buffer from obsolete block address >>>> >>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion >>>> against with each other. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> >>>> --- >>>> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio. >>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++ >>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + >>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ >>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 + >>>> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c >>>> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c >>>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) >>>> { >>>> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping; >>>> struct inode *inode = mapping->host; >>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); >>>> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); >>>> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; >>>> int err; >>>> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) >>>> >>>> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter)); >>>> >>>> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); >>>> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio); >>>> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); >>>> + >>>> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { >>>> if (err > 0) >>>> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE); >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >>>> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h >>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info { >>>> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */ >>>> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */ >>>> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */ >>>> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */ >>>> }; >>>> >>>> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext, >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >>>> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c >>>> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step: >>>> /* phase 3 */ >>>> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino); >>>> if (inode) { >>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); >>>> + bool locked = false; >>>> + >>>> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) { >>>> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem)) >>>> + continue; >>>> + locked = true; >>>> + } >>>> + >>>> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode) >>>> + ofs_in_node; >>>> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) >>>> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx); >>>> else >>>> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type); >>>> + >>>> + if (locked) >>>> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem); >>>> + >>>> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type); >>>> } >>>> } >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644 >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c >>>> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb) >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list); >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages); >>>> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock); >>>> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem); >>>> >>>> /* Will be used by directory only */ >>>> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level; >>>> -- >>>> 2.7.2 > > . > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO 2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu @ 2016-07-12 17:09 ` Jaegeuk Kim 0 siblings, 0 replies; 6+ messages in thread From: Jaegeuk Kim @ 2016-07-12 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Chao Yu; +Cc: Chao Yu, linux-f2fs-devel, linux-kernel On Tue, Jul 12, 2016 at 09:28:26AM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2016/7/10 0:22, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On Fri, Jul 08, 2016 at 11:50:02PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > >> Hi Jaegeuk, > >> > >> On 2016/7/8 11:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > >>> Hi Chao, > >>> > >>> Could you take a look at this in xfstests/generic/013? > >>> > >>> [ 502.480850] ====================================================== > >>> [ 502.480864] [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ] > >>> [ 502.480877] 4.7.0-rc1+ #124 Tainted: G OE > >>> [ 502.480886] ------------------------------------------------------- > >>> [ 502.480897] fsstress/10729 is trying to acquire lock: > >>> [ 502.480906] (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}, at: [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 > >>> [ 502.480948] > >>> [ 502.480948] but task is already holding lock: > >>> [ 502.480959] (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > >>> [ 502.481003] > >>> [ 502.481003] which lock already depends on the new lock. > >>> [ 502.481003] > >>> [ 502.481018] > >>> [ 502.481018] the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is: > >>> [ 502.481030] > >>> [ 502.481030] -> #1 (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}: > >>> [ 502.481054] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 > >>> [ 502.481071] [<ffffffff818d1921>] down_read+0x51/0xa0 > >>> [ 502.481089] [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > >>> [ 502.481114] [<ffffffff811c34c7>] generic_file_direct_write+0xa7/0x160 > >>> [ 502.481133] [<ffffffff811c363d>] __generic_file_write_iter+0xbd/0x1e0 > >>> [ 502.481149] [<ffffffffc080437b>] f2fs_file_write_iter+0xdb/0x100 [f2fs] > >>> [ 502.481173] [<ffffffff81253a88>] __vfs_write+0xc8/0x140 > >>> [ 502.481190] [<ffffffff81254c55>] vfs_write+0xb5/0x1b0 > >>> [ 502.481205] [<ffffffff81255fe9>] SyS_write+0x49/0xa0 > >>> [ 502.481220] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 > >>> [ 502.481236] > >>> [ 502.481236] -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18){+.+.+.}: > >>> [ 502.481264] [<ffffffff810e481c>] __lock_acquire+0x161c/0x1940 > >>> [ 502.481280] [<ffffffff810e51c3>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x220 > >>> [ 502.481296] [<ffffffff818d1b9a>] down_write+0x5a/0xc0 > >>> [ 502.481312] [<ffffffff81299c3b>] do_blockdev_direct_IO+0x1db/0x2310 > >>> [ 502.481328] [<ffffffff8129bdaa>] __blockdev_direct_IO+0x3a/0x40 > >>> [ 502.481344] [<ffffffffc081e2e4>] f2fs_direct_IO+0x104/0x3d0 [f2fs] > >>> [ 502.481368] [<ffffffff811c40a9>] generic_file_read_iter+0x689/0x7e0 > >>> [ 502.481384] [<ffffffff812545d1>] __vfs_read+0xc1/0x130 > >>> [ 502.481399] [<ffffffff81254af1>] vfs_read+0x91/0x140 > >>> [ 502.481414] [<ffffffff81255f49>] SyS_read+0x49/0xa0 > >>> [ 502.481429] [<ffffffff818d4100>] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0xc1 > >>> [ 502.481445] > >>> [ 502.481445] other info that might help us debug this: > >>> [ 502.481445] > >>> [ 502.481459] Possible unsafe locking scenario: > >>> [ 502.481459] > >>> [ 502.481726] CPU0 CPU1 > >>> [ 502.481987] ---- ---- > >>> [ 502.482242] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >>> [ 502.482501] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); > >>> [ 502.482765] lock(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >>> [ 502.483025] lock(&sb->s_type->i_mutex_key#18); > >> > >> Seems we will suffer ABBA deadlock: > >> > >> writer reader > >> - f2fs_file_write_iter > >> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) > >> - __generic_file_write_iter > >> - generic_file_direct_write > >> - f2fs_direct_IO > >> - generic_file_read_iter > >> - f2fs_direct_IO > >> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) > >> - __blockdev_direct_IO > >> - do_blockdev_direct_IO > >> - down_write(&inode->i_rwsem) > >> > >> - down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem) > >> > >> What about splitting dio_rwsem to rdio_rwsem/wdio_rwsem for reader/writer to > >> avoid deadlock? > > > > Hmm, how about inode_trylock in GC? > > If we reuse inode->i_rwsem here, we will suffer the same issue when we remove > i_rwsem lock in dio writer or dio reader for better concurrency. > > So I think it's better to use separate lock to just fix this issue. Got it. > > Thanks, > > > > >> > >> Thanks, > >> > >>> [ 502.483285] > >>> [ 502.483285] *** DEADLOCK *** > >>> [ 502.483285] > >>> [ 502.484018] 1 lock held by fsstress/10729: > >>> [ 502.484262] #0: (&fi->dio_rwsem){.+.+.+}, at: [<ffffffffc081e2b1>] f2fs_direct_IO+0xd1/0x3d0 [f2fs] > >>> > >>> Thanks, > >>> > >>> On Thu, Jul 07, 2016 at 12:49:12PM +0800, Chao Yu wrote: > >>>> From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>> > >>>> Datas in file can be operated by GC and DIO simultaneously, so we will > >>>> face race case as below: > >>>> > >>>> For write case: > >>>> Thread A Thread B > >>>> - generic_file_direct_write > >>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range > >>>> - f2fs_direct_IO > >>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO > >>>> - do_direct_IO > >>>> - get_more_blocks > >>>> - f2fs_gc > >>>> - do_garbage_collect > >>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>> - move_data_page > >>>> - do_write_data_page > >>>> migrate data block to new block address > >>>> - dio_bio_submit > >>>> update user data to old block address > >>>> > >>>> For read case: > >>>> Thread A Thread B > >>>> - generic_file_direct_write > >>>> - invalidate_inode_pages2_range > >>>> - f2fs_direct_IO > >>>> - do_blockdev_direct_IO > >>>> - do_direct_IO > >>>> - get_more_blocks > >>>> - f2fs_balance_fs > >>>> - f2fs_gc > >>>> - do_garbage_collect > >>>> - gc_data_segment > >>>> - move_data_page > >>>> - do_write_data_page > >>>> migrate data block to new block address > >>>> - write_checkpoint > >>>> - do_checkpoint > >>>> - clear_prefree_segments > >>>> - f2fs_issue_discard > >>>> discard old block adress > >>>> - dio_bio_submit > >>>> update user buffer from obsolete block address > >>>> > >>>> In order to fix this, for one file, we should let DIO and GC getting exclusion > >>>> against with each other. > >>>> > >>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> > >>>> --- > >>>> v3: use semaphore to avoid racing in between read dio and write dio. > >>>> fs/f2fs/data.c | 4 ++++ > >>>> fs/f2fs/f2fs.h | 1 + > >>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 13 +++++++++++++ > >>>> fs/f2fs/super.c | 1 + > >>>> 4 files changed, 19 insertions(+) > >>>> > >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/data.c b/fs/f2fs/data.c > >>>> index b6fd5bd..19197bb 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/data.c > >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/data.c > >>>> @@ -1712,6 +1712,7 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) > >>>> { > >>>> struct address_space *mapping = iocb->ki_filp->f_mapping; > >>>> struct inode *inode = mapping->host; > >>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); > >>>> size_t count = iov_iter_count(iter); > >>>> loff_t offset = iocb->ki_pos; > >>>> int err; > >>>> @@ -1727,7 +1728,10 @@ static ssize_t f2fs_direct_IO(struct kiocb *iocb, struct iov_iter *iter) > >>>> > >>>> trace_f2fs_direct_IO_enter(inode, offset, count, iov_iter_rw(iter)); > >>>> > >>>> + down_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >>>> err = blockdev_direct_IO(iocb, inode, iter, get_data_block_dio); > >>>> + up_read(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >>>> + > >>>> if (iov_iter_rw(iter) == WRITE) { > >>>> if (err > 0) > >>>> set_inode_flag(inode, FI_UPDATE_WRITE); > >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>>> index bf9a13a..2e439ec 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/f2fs.h > >>>> @@ -474,6 +474,7 @@ struct f2fs_inode_info { > >>>> struct list_head inmem_pages; /* inmemory pages managed by f2fs */ > >>>> struct mutex inmem_lock; /* lock for inmemory pages */ > >>>> struct extent_tree *extent_tree; /* cached extent_tree entry */ > >>>> + struct rw_semaphore dio_rwsem; /* avoid racing between dio and gc */ > >>>> }; > >>>> > >>>> static inline void get_extent_info(struct extent_info *ext, > >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>>> index c612137..a9bfb8d 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c > >>>> @@ -755,12 +755,25 @@ next_step: > >>>> /* phase 3 */ > >>>> inode = find_gc_inode(gc_list, dni.ino); > >>>> if (inode) { > >>>> + struct f2fs_inode_info *fi = F2FS_I(inode); > >>>> + bool locked = false; > >>>> + > >>>> + if (S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) { > >>>> + if (!down_write_trylock(&fi->dio_rwsem)) > >>>> + continue; > >>>> + locked = true; > >>>> + } > >>>> + > >>>> start_bidx = start_bidx_of_node(nofs, inode) > >>>> + ofs_in_node; > >>>> if (f2fs_encrypted_inode(inode) && S_ISREG(inode->i_mode)) > >>>> move_encrypted_block(inode, start_bidx); > >>>> else > >>>> move_data_page(inode, start_bidx, gc_type); > >>>> + > >>>> + if (locked) > >>>> + up_write(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >>>> + > >>>> stat_inc_data_blk_count(sbi, 1, gc_type); > >>>> } > >>>> } > >>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/super.c b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>>> index edd1b35..dde57fb 100644 > >>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/super.c > >>>> @@ -579,6 +579,7 @@ static struct inode *f2fs_alloc_inode(struct super_block *sb) > >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->gdirty_list); > >>>> INIT_LIST_HEAD(&fi->inmem_pages); > >>>> mutex_init(&fi->inmem_lock); > >>>> + init_rwsem(&fi->dio_rwsem); > >>>> > >>>> /* Will be used by directory only */ > >>>> fi->i_dir_level = F2FS_SB(sb)->dir_level; > >>>> -- > >>>> 2.7.2 > > > > . > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 6+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2016-07-12 17:09 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 6+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2016-07-07 4:49 [PATCH v3] f2fs: fix to avoid data update racing between GC and DIO Chao Yu 2016-07-08 3:19 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-07-08 15:50 ` Chao Yu 2016-07-09 16:22 ` Jaegeuk Kim 2016-07-12 1:28 ` Chao Yu 2016-07-12 17:09 ` Jaegeuk Kim
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).