Re: NFS deadlock between 'sync' and commit after unmount....

[Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>]

On Mon 07-04-14 18:02:16, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-04-07 at 22:27 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Mon 07-04-14 10:10:27, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> > > On Apr 6, 2014, at 23:50, NeilBrown <neilb@suse.de> wrote:
> > > > I've just hit a deadlock in NFS that seems very strange.
> > > > The kernel is 3.14-rc8 which some local changes which shouldn't affect the
> > > > deadlocking code.
> > > > 
> > > > Shortly after umounting the NFS filesystem with "umount -f" (though I don't
> > > > think the -f is important), I ran "sync".
> > > > 
> > > > The sync is now stuck in
> > > > 
> > > > [<ffffffff81197fc1>] sync_inodes_sb+0xa1/0x1c0
> > > > [<ffffffff8119cd99>] sync_inodes_one_sb+0x19/0x20
> > > > [<ffffffff81173372>] iterate_supers+0xb2/0x110
> > > > [<ffffffff8119cfd0>] sys_sync+0x30/0x90
> > > > [<ffffffff81aa4622>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
> > > > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> > > > 
> > > > while kworker/u16:1 is stuck:
> > > > 
> > > > [<ffffffff815420b3>] call_rwsem_down_write_failed+0x13/0x20
> > > > [<ffffffff81172889>] deactivate_super+0x39/0x60
> > > > [<ffffffff812d56f1>] nfs_sb_deactive+0x21/0x30
> > > > [<ffffffff812d2ef9>] __put_nfs_open_context+0xc9/0x100
> > > > [<ffffffff812d2f3b>] put_nfs_open_context+0xb/0x10
> > > > [<ffffffff812ddd14>] nfs_commitdata_release+0x14/0x30
> > > > [<ffffffff812ddd4a>] nfs_commit_release+0x1a/0x20
> > > > [<ffffffff81a45a05>] rpc_free_task+0x25/0x70
> > > > [<ffffffff81a45fd8>] rpc_do_put_task+0x78/0x80
> > > > [<ffffffff81a45feb>] rpc_put_task+0xb/0x10
> > > > [<ffffffff812de3fe>] nfs_initiate_commit+0xce/0x110
> > > > [<ffffffff812df112>] nfs_commit_list+0x62/0x90
> > > > [<ffffffff812dfd26>] nfs_commit_inode+0xa6/0x170
> > > > [<ffffffff812dfe4d>] nfs_write_inode+0x5d/0xa0
> > > > [<ffffffff81300d69>] nfs4_write_inode+0x9/0x10
> > > > [<ffffffff811978ec>] __writeback_single_inode+0x10c/0x2c0
> > > > [<ffffffff811987ea>] writeback_sb_inodes+0x2ca/0x450
> > > > [<ffffffff81198b2c>] wb_writeback+0xec/0x320
> > > > [<ffffffff81199365>] bdi_writeback_workfn+0x115/0x4c0
> > > > [<ffffffff810a595b>] process_one_work+0x16b/0x430
> > > > [<ffffffff810a6619>] worker_thread+0x119/0x3a0
> > > > [<ffffffff810ac2bd>] kthread+0xcd/0xf0
> > > > [<ffffffff81aa457c>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
> > > > [<ffffffffffffffff>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > So sync is holding sb->s_umount, queued some bdi work on the filesystem
> > > > and is waiting for it to complete.  Mean while, that work has (I think)
> > > > submitted a 'commit' (via ->write_inode) and that commit wants to
> > > > deactivate_super and so needs to get ->s_umount.
> > > > 
> > > > I suspect this could happen even more easily with a lazy unmount.
> > > > 
> > > > It seems that this commit request is that last thing that is keeping
> > > > ->s_active elevated and it deadlocks trying to drop the last s_active.
> > > > 
> > > > I have no idea how to fix it....  help?
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > The problem seems to be the use of iterate_supers(), which grabs a
> > > passive reference, and conflicts with our use of an active reference in
> > > the open context.
> >   Yeah, we cannot really do otherwise in iterate_supers() - we have to grab
> > some superblock reference and we don't really want to get an active one
> > since that would result in spurious EBUSY returns from umount.
> > 
> > Cannot we just punt the deactivate_super() call to a workqueue to avoid
> > this deadlock? It's a bit ugly but it should do the trick. Or is
> > nfs_sb_deactive() called too often and we'd see some adverse effects for
> > that? We could also offload it to workqueue only in the special case where
> > sb->s_active == 1. That should be really rare then but it's a bit ugly
> > poking in VFS internals.
> 
> The activate/deactivate super is basically there to save our bacon when
> NFS file state extends beyond the usual VFS path walk, open() and
> close(). Examples include sillyrename and NFSv4 delegations. Even
> ordinary read and write state can extend beyond close() if the user
> decides to 'kill -9' in the wrong places.
> In most of these situations, we need to keep a dentry around until we're
> finished, which means that we want to keep the super block alive too.
  Yeah, that makes sense. But offloading dropping of sb reference to a
workqueue would work then, wouldn't it?

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
SUSE Labs, CR