From: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
To: jaegeuk@kernel.org
Cc: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, chao@kernel.org,
Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Subject: [PATCH] f2fs: fix potential deadlock
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2017 20:32:00 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170731123200.24257-1-yuchao0@huawei.com> (raw)
generic/241 reports below bug:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.13.0-rc1+ #32 Tainted: G O
------------------------------------------------------
f2fs_gc-250:0/22186 is trying to acquire lock:
(&sbi->gc_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<f8fa7f0b>] f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
but task is already holding lock:
(sb_internal#2){++++.-}, at: [<f8fb5609>] gc_thread_func+0x159/0x4a0 [f2fs]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (sb_internal#2){++++.-}:
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
__sb_start_write+0x11d/0x1f0
f2fs_evict_inode+0x2d6/0x4e0 [f2fs]
evict+0xa8/0x170
iput+0x1fb/0x2c0
f2fs_sync_inode_meta+0x3f/0xf0 [f2fs]
write_checkpoint+0x1b1/0x750 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_fs+0x85/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_do_sync_file.isra.24+0x137/0xa30 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_file+0x34/0x40 [f2fs]
vfs_fsync_range+0x4a/0xa0
do_fsync+0x3c/0x60
SyS_fdatasync+0x15/0x20
do_fast_syscall_32+0xa1/0x1b0
entry_SYSENTER_32+0x4c/0x7b
-> #1 (&sbi->cp_mutex){+.+...}:
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
__mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
write_checkpoint+0x2f/0x750 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_fs+0x85/0x1b0 [f2fs]
sync_filesystem+0x67/0x80
generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x100
kill_block_super+0x22/0x50
kill_f2fs_super+0x3a/0x40 [f2fs]
deactivate_locked_super+0x3d/0x70
deactivate_super+0x40/0x60
cleanup_mnt+0x39/0x70
__cleanup_mnt+0x10/0x20
task_work_run+0x69/0x80
exit_to_usermode_loop+0x57/0x92
do_fast_syscall_32+0x18c/0x1b0
entry_SYSENTER_32+0x4c/0x7b
-> #0 (&sbi->gc_mutex){+.+...}:
validate_chain.isra.36+0xc50/0xdb0
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
__mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_balance_fs_bg+0xb9/0x200 [f2fs]
gc_thread_func+0x302/0x4a0 [f2fs]
kthread+0xe9/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&sbi->gc_mutex --> &sbi->cp_mutex --> sb_internal#2
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(sb_internal#2);
lock(&sbi->cp_mutex);
lock(sb_internal#2);
lock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by f2fs_gc-250:0/22186:
#0: (sb_internal#2){++++.-}, at: [<f8fb5609>] gc_thread_func+0x159/0x4a0 [f2fs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 22186 Comm: f2fs_gc-250:0 Tainted: G O 4.13.0-rc1+ #32
Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x5f/0x92
print_circular_bug+0x1b3/0x1bd
validate_chain.isra.36+0xc50/0xdb0
? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0xf/0x20
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
__mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_balance_fs_bg+0xb9/0x200 [f2fs]
gc_thread_func+0x302/0x4a0 [f2fs]
? preempt_schedule_common+0x2f/0x4d
? f2fs_gc+0x540/0x540 [f2fs]
kthread+0xe9/0x120
? f2fs_gc+0x540/0x540 [f2fs]
? kthread_create_on_node+0x30/0x30
ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
The deadlock occurs in below condition:
GC Thread Thread B
- sb_start_intwrite
- f2fs_sync_file
- f2fs_sync_fs
- mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex)
- write_checkpoint
- block_operations
- f2fs_sync_inode_meta
- iput
- sb_start_intwrite
- mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex)
Fix this by altering sb_start_intwrite to sb_start_write_trylock.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
---
fs/f2fs/gc.c | 5 +++--
1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
index 1c0117f60083..f57cadae1a30 100644
--- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
+++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
@@ -55,7 +55,8 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
}
#endif
- sb_start_intwrite(sbi->sb);
+ if (!sb_start_write_trylock(sbi->sb))
+ continue;
/*
* [GC triggering condition]
@@ -96,7 +97,7 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data)
/* balancing f2fs's metadata periodically */
f2fs_balance_fs_bg(sbi);
next:
- sb_end_intwrite(sbi->sb);
+ sb_end_write(sbi->sb);
} while (!kthread_should_stop());
return 0;
--
2.13.1.388.g69e6b9b4f4a9
next reply other threads:[~2017-07-31 12:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-07-31 12:32 Chao Yu [this message]
2017-07-31 23:49 ` [PATCH] f2fs: fix potential deadlock Jaegeuk Kim
2017-08-01 15:39 ` [f2fs-dev] " Chao Yu
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=20170731123200.24257-1-yuchao0@huawei.com \
--to=yuchao0@huawei.com \
--cc=chao@kernel.org \
--cc=jaegeuk@kernel.org \
--cc=linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).