From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,INCLUDES_PATCH,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EF4AC2D0A3 for ; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:31:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.sourceforge.net (lists.sourceforge.net [216.105.38.7]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9BB6920825; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:31:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sourceforge.net header.i=@sourceforge.net header.b="KFGxEfMr"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=sf.net header.i=@sf.net header.b="W4Ftiuqa"; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="d3AR2qLK" DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org 9BB6920825 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=kernel.org Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kd5Cy-00046P-MT; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:31:44 +0000 Received: from [172.30.20.202] (helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kd5Cu-00045W-17 for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:31:40 +0000 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sourceforge.net; s=x; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References: Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender: Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=yYXntx3pkgKGAM654zCcHKHjA0Bf7KMW3fJU5Pqeuko=; b=KFGxEfMrWz5NmCxJd7Qk2jGgP/ XYbDhXTBXunYcydqoddXQS+g8F2Wml4Ud2hNZCsvB/9m14STQy6ipmxBJsgZAq15F8YGeQBQ8WfFT gNcmW04UO5PEeASFwpcxsKjJ+9FU8wlOLSjLksAL9O3FvlGB+z7EoKuh1awFTN9GsDe0=; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sf.net; s=x ; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version:References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To :From:Date:Sender:Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID: Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From:Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc :Resent-Message-ID:List-Id:List-Help:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe: List-Post:List-Owner:List-Archive; bh=yYXntx3pkgKGAM654zCcHKHjA0Bf7KMW3fJU5Pqeuko=; b=W4FtiuqaqkvOFl03vWIUgC3ztA wO9+O+r1RzsdH1jgQX9AUxNhlTGimZzTYRZS/3vj95xw8bOg16bttmE5zv51K88MWGkcYC7nD3JE1 bgZ+qujrPSvCkG3lNRioBwvDducOByWEd1Y5yfmcY/XlO/yUa2V7wOYE2TPgXyXyvwS8=; Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]) by sfi-mx-1.v28.lw.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92.2) id 1kd5Ck-0007RL-Vx for linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:31:37 +0000 Received: from google.com (unknown [104.132.1.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1E7AC2076E; Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:31:25 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1605159085; bh=zRwrA+HVZcRHjHL8H5aKqesuUNcgOMvjAT62h6bxZok=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=d3AR2qLK1zbYHW6qXTgphkNgujefkn3Ak2YgPdDfkWVcPx8Mfi9dGl411u4cbvM+j NgwcrHeFYf/4emPwMF8whc0//GvmBSA4HU8qUjfD9ovy8ReIEFzMe2Jz3JN38ClS1M PW1wsNBhyOmCZZ2CZMM6ZXs+7BbvrdDHS0dvGDkk= Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:31:22 -0800 From: Jaegeuk Kim To: Chao Yu Message-ID: <20201112053122.GA3826485@google.com> References: <20201109170012.2129411-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org> <20201110041958.GA1598246@google.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Headers-End: 1kd5Ck-0007RL-Vx Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: avoid race condition for shinker count X-BeenThere: linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: kernel-team@android.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Light Hsieh , linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: linux-f2fs-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote: > On 2020/11/10 12:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote: > > > On 2020/11/10 1:00, Jaegeuk Kim wrote: > > > > Light reported sometimes shinker gets nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt resulting in > > > > > > I didn't get the problem clearly, did you mean __count_nat_entries() will > > > give the wrong shrink count due to race condition? should there be a lock > > > while reading these two variables? > > > > > > > wrong do_shinker work. Basically the two counts should not happen like that. > > > > > > > > So, I suspect this race condtion where: > > > > - f2fs_try_to_free_nats __flush_nat_entry_set > > > > nat_cnt=2, dirty_nat_cnt=2 > > > > __clear_nat_cache_dirty > > > > spin_lock(nat_list_lock) > > > > list_move() > > > > spin_unlock(nat_list_lock) > > > > spin_lock(nat_list_lock) > > > > list_del() > > > > spin_unlock(nat_list_lock) > > > > nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=2 > > > > nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=1 > > > > > > nm_i->nat_cnt and nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt were protected by > > > nm_i->nat_tree_lock, I didn't see why expanding nat_list_lock range > > > will help... since there are still places nat_list_lock() didn't > > > cover these two reference counts. > > > > Yeah, I missed nat_tree_lock, and indeed it should cover this. So, the problem > > is Light reported subtle case of nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt in shrink_count. > > We may need to use nat_tree_lock in shrink_count? > > change like this? > Yup. > __count_nat_entries() > > down_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock); > count = NM_I(sbi)->nat_cnt - NM_I(sbi)->dirty_nat_cnt; > up_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock); > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > > > > Reported-by: Light Hsieh > > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim > > > > --- > > > > fs/f2fs/node.c | 3 +-- > > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c > > > > index 42394de6c7eb..e8ec65e40f06 100644 > > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c > > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c > > > > @@ -269,11 +269,10 @@ static void __clear_nat_cache_dirty(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i, > > > > { > > > > spin_lock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock); > > > > list_move_tail(&ne->list, &nm_i->nat_entries); > > > > - spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock); > > > > - > > > > set_nat_flag(ne, IS_DIRTY, false); > > > > set->entry_cnt--; > > > > nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt--; > > > > + spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock); > > > > } > > > > static unsigned int __gang_lookup_nat_set(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i, > > > > > > . > > _______________________________________________ Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel