linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Jiaying Zhang <jiayingz@google.com>
Cc: linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, jack@suse.cz
Subject: Re: deadlocks with fs quotas
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 2009 20:31:29 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20090627183129.GB31902@duck.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <5df78e1d0906261805n198639ddoe6b5a0856a065bfd@mail.gmail.com>

  Hello,

On Fri 26-06-09 18:05:15, Jiaying Zhang wrote:
> I am looking at the fs quota code while debugging a deadlock problem
> on ext2 file system. I found there is a potential deadlock between quotaon
> and quotaoff (or quotasync). Basically, all of quotactl operations need to
> be protected by dqonoff_mutex. vfs_quota_off and vfs_quota_sync also call
> sb->s_op->quota_write that needs to grab the i_mutex of the quota file.
> But in vfs_quota_on_inode (called from quotaon operation), the current
> code tries to grab  the i_mutex of the quota file first before getting
> quonoff_mutex.
> 
> Here is a simple test to show the problem:
> $ while true; do quotaon /dev/hda >&/dev/null; usleep $RANDOM; done &
> $ while true; do quotaoff /dev/hda >&/dev/null; usleep $RANDOM; done &
> 
> After running for a while, the two processes get deadlocked.
> Below is my proposed change to fix the problem:
  Thanks for the analysis and the patch. You are right, it is a bug and your
fix seems to be correct. Only, we should also use I_MUTEX_QUOTA for
acquiring i_mutex to be consistent with other places (and silence lockdep).

> Index: git-linux/fs/quota/dquot.c
> ===================================================================
> --- git-linux.orig/fs/quota/dquot.c     2009-05-20 18:05:55.000000000 -0700
> +++ git-linux/fs/quota/dquot.c  2009-06-26 17:57:04.000000000 -0700
> @@ -2042,8 +2042,8 @@
>                  * changes */
>                 invalidate_bdev(sb->s_bdev);
>         }
> -       mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>         mutex_lock(&dqopt->dqonoff_mutex);
> +       mutex_lock(&inode->i_mutex);
>         if (sb_has_quota_loaded(sb, type)) {
>                 error = -EBUSY;
>                 goto out_lock;
> @@ -2094,7 +2094,6 @@
>         dqopt->files[type] = NULL;
>         iput(inode);
>  out_lock:
> -       mutex_unlock(&dqopt->dqonoff_mutex);
>         if (oldflags != -1) {
>                 down_write(&dqopt->dqptr_sem);
>                 /* Set the flags back (in the case of accidental quotaon()
> @@ -2104,6 +2103,7 @@
>                 up_write(&dqopt->dqptr_sem);
>         }
>         mutex_unlock(&inode->i_mutex);
> +       mutex_unlock(&dqopt->dqonoff_mutex);
>  out_fmt:
>         put_quota_format(fmt);
> 
> 
> Also while debugging the problem, I found the following code path:
> 
> shrink_icache_memory -> prune_icache (grab iprune_mutex) -> dispose_list ->
> clear_inode -> dquot_drop -> dqput -> dquot_release ->
> dqopt->ops[dquot->dq_type]->write_file_info ->
> sb->s_op->quota_write (i.e., ext2_quota_write for ext2)
  Yes, I'm aware of this.

> AFAICT, it seems very deadlock prone that the quota system tries to write
> the quota file while clearing an inode. The ext2_quota_write calls
> ext2_get_block that may block at alloc_page that in turn may try to call
> shrink_icache_memory when the system is low in memory. But the
> iprune_mutex is already hold by the process so the system will get
> into deadlock here. I haven't got a test case that shows the deadlock but
> want to raise this issue here first to see if I have missed anything.
  I guess, you mean page allocation from sb_bread() or similar functions...
The point is that all these functions should perform allocations with GFP_FS
flag cleared and thus we can never reenter the inode pruning (or any other
filesystem) code.

									Honza

PS: I'm going on vacation for a week, I'll merge your patch when I return.
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR

  reply	other threads:[~2009-06-27 18:31 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-06-27  1:05 deadlocks with fs quotas Jiaying Zhang
2009-06-27 18:31 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2009-06-30  0:12   ` Jiaying Zhang
2009-07-07 16:08 ` Jan Kara
2009-07-07 18:19   ` Jiaying Zhang

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=20090627183129.GB31902@duck.suse.cz \
    --to=jack@suse.cz \
    --cc=jiayingz@google.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@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).