From: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
Cc: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
cgroups@vger.kernel.org, xuejiufei <xuejiufei@gmail.com>,
kernel-team@fb.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
Date: Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:00:04 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20171213110004.GB23068@quack2.suse.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20171212163830.GC3919388@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
On Tue 12-12-17 08:38:30, Tejun Heo wrote:
> sync_inodes_sb() can race against cgwb (cgroup writeback) membership
> switches and fail to writeback some inodes. For example, if an inode
> switches to another wb while sync_inodes_sb() is in progress, the new
> wb might not be visible to bdi_split_work_to_wbs() at all or the inode
> might jump from a wb which hasn't issued writebacks yet to one which
> already has.
>
> This patch adds backing_dev_info->wb_switch_rwsem to synchronize cgwb
> switch path against sync_inodes_sb() so that sync_inodes_sb() is
> guaranteed to see all the target wbs and inodes can't jump wbs to
> escape syncing.
>
> v2: Fixed misplaced rwsem init. Spotted by Jiufei.
OK, but this effectively prevents writeback from sync_inodes_sb() to ever
make inode switch wbs. Cannot that be abused in some way like making sure
writeback of our memcg is "invisible" by forcing it out using sync(2)? It
just looks a bit dangerous to me...
Honza
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Jiufei Xue <xuejiufei@gmail.com>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/dc694ae2-f07f-61e1-7097-7c8411cee12d@gmail.com
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h | 1
> mm/backing-dev.c | 1
> 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -331,11 +331,22 @@ struct inode_switch_wbs_context {
> struct work_struct work;
> };
>
> +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> + down_write(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +}
> +
> +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> + up_write(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +}
> +
> static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct inode_switch_wbs_context *isw =
> container_of(work, struct inode_switch_wbs_context, work);
> struct inode *inode = isw->inode;
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(inode);
> struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> struct bdi_writeback *old_wb = inode->i_wb;
> struct bdi_writeback *new_wb = isw->new_wb;
> @@ -344,6 +355,12 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(str
> void **slot;
>
> /*
> + * If @inode switches cgwb membership while sync_inodes_sb() is
> + * being issued, sync_inodes_sb() might miss it. Synchronize.
> + */
> + down_read(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +
> + /*
> * By the time control reaches here, RCU grace period has passed
> * since I_WB_SWITCH assertion and all wb stat update transactions
> * between unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin/end() are guaranteed to be
> @@ -435,6 +452,8 @@ skip_switch:
> spin_unlock(&new_wb->list_lock);
> spin_unlock(&old_wb->list_lock);
>
> + up_read(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +
> if (switched) {
> wb_wakeup(new_wb);
> wb_put(old_wb);
> @@ -475,9 +494,18 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod
> if (inode->i_state & I_WB_SWITCH)
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * Avoid starting new switches while sync_inodes_sb() is in
> + * progress. Otherwise, if the down_write protected issue path
> + * blocks heavily, we might end up starting a large number of
> + * switches which will block on the rwsem.
> + */
> + if (!down_read_trylock(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem))
> + return;
> +
> isw = kzalloc(sizeof(*isw), GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!isw)
> - return;
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> /* find and pin the new wb */
> rcu_read_lock();
> @@ -511,12 +539,14 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod
> * Let's continue after I_WB_SWITCH is guaranteed to be visible.
> */
> call_rcu(&isw->rcu_head, inode_switch_wbs_rcu_fn);
> - return;
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> out_free:
> if (isw->new_wb)
> wb_put(isw->new_wb);
> kfree(isw);
> +out_unlock:
> + up_read(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -893,6 +923,9 @@ fs_initcall(cgroup_writeback_init);
>
> #else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK */
>
> +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { }
> +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { }
> +
> static struct bdi_writeback *
> locked_inode_to_wb_and_lock_list(struct inode *inode)
> __releases(&inode->i_lock)
> @@ -2422,8 +2455,11 @@ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *
> return;
> WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
>
> + /* protect against inode wb switch, see inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() */
> + bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem(bdi);
> bdi_split_work_to_wbs(bdi, &work, false);
> wb_wait_for_completion(bdi, &done);
> + bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem(bdi);
>
> wait_sb_inodes(sb);
> }
> --- a/include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h
> @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info {
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK
> struct radix_tree_root cgwb_tree; /* radix tree of active cgroup wbs */
> struct rb_root cgwb_congested_tree; /* their congested states */
> + struct rw_semaphore wb_switch_rwsem; /* no cgwb switch while syncing */
> #else
> struct bdi_writeback_congested *wb_congested;
> #endif
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -706,6 +706,7 @@ static int cgwb_bdi_init(struct backing_
>
> INIT_RADIX_TREE(&bdi->cgwb_tree, GFP_ATOMIC);
> bdi->cgwb_congested_tree = RB_ROOT;
> + init_rwsem(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
>
> ret = wb_init(&bdi->wb, bdi, 1, GFP_KERNEL);
> if (!ret) {
--
Jan Kara <jack@suse.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-12-13 11:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <dc694ae2-f07f-61e1-7097-7c8411cee12d@gmail.com>
[not found] ` <20171205182007.GV2421075@devbig577.frc2.facebook.com>
[not found] ` <8844b550-d91c-38d5-997a-a899d1e4aa42@gmail.com>
2017-12-11 19:50 ` [PATCH] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches Tejun Heo
2017-12-12 6:04 ` xuejiufei
2017-12-12 16:30 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-12 16:38 ` [PATCH v2] " Tejun Heo
2017-12-13 11:00 ` Jan Kara [this message]
2017-12-13 15:39 ` Tejun Heo
2017-12-19 13:04 ` Jan Kara
2017-12-19 13:31 ` Tejun Heo
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=20171213110004.GB23068@quack2.suse.cz \
--to=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=cgroups@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=kernel-team@fb.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=tj@kernel.org \
--cc=xuejiufei@gmail.com \
/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).