From: Dave Chinner <david@fromorbit.com>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] xfs: fix buffer shudown reference count mismatch
Date: Wed, 7 Nov 2012 06:59:40 +1100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20121106195940.GA24575@dastard> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20121106125949.GA32329@infradead.org>
On Tue, Nov 06, 2012 at 07:59:49AM -0500, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 03, 2012 at 10:47:41AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > I think that's irrelevant here - there will *never* be an IO waiter
> > at this point in time. This processing is in log buffer IO
> > completion context, so the buffers are still pinned in memory. Hence
> > anyone trying to do IO on it will be waiting in xfs_buf_wait_unpin()
> > and never get to xfs_buf_iowait(). And because xfs_buf_wait_unpin()
> > is called with the buffer lock held, we'll never do the failure
> > handling in xfs_buf_item_unpin until the buffer IO is completed and
> > it is unlocked.
>
> How do we manage to submit it synchronously then?
I don't follow what problem you are talking about here.
Fundamentally, races with IO are resolved like this regardless of
whether the racing Io is sync or async
xfs_buf_lock
make modifications
.....
xfs_buf_lock
.....
xfs_trans_commit
....
IOP_PIN()
IOP_UNLOCK()
xfs_buf_iorequest
xfs_buf_wait_unpin()
.....
<shutdown, no new buffers can get to xfs_buf_iorequest>
IOP_UNPIN(remove)
xfs_buf_item_unpin(remove)
wake_up_all(pin waiters)
xfs_buf_lock()
.....
submit IO
......
xfs_buf_ioend()
wakeup(b_iowait)
.....
xfs_buf_relse()
xfs_buf_hold
xfs_buf_stale
ASYNC
xfs_buf_ioend()
bp->b_iodone()
xfs_buf_rele
xfs_buf_ioend()
xfs_buf_rele
xfs_buf_free
What this also points out is that we shoul dbe checking for shutdown
after xfs_buf_wait_unpin(), too, because otherwise we are submitting
IO after the shutdown is initiated....
> The inode and dquot
> reclaim xfs_bwrite calls already wait for an unpin first, so I don't
> think these are the problem. The only other call on a live fs seems
> to xfs_qm_shake -> xfs_buf_delwri_submit, but that one does wait
> for the complete() call on b_iowait. I suspect we are hitting that
> and due to it skipping the wait if b_ioerror is set and waiting on
> multiple buffers that complete together might hide the issue.
We are in a shutdown situation. xfs_buf_delwri_submit() goes via
xfs_bdstrat_cb() which will stop any new IOs from being submitted
via this path. If it is blocked on the above case, then it is
also resolved by the above case...
> __xfs_buf_delwri_submit for the wait == true case also seems to be
> the only place that actually skips the ispinned check.
Sure, but that we're in a shutdown situation, so it doesn't matter -
the buffer will never get to xfs_buf_wait_unpin() because of the
shutdown check in xfs_bdstrat_cb().
I still don't see the problem you are trying to explain to me. Maybe
I'm just being dense....
Cheers,
Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
david@fromorbit.com
_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2012-11-06 19:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 33+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2012-11-02 0:38 [PATCH 0/6] xfs: fixes for 3.7-rc3 Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 0:38 ` [PATCH 1/6] xfs: silence uninitialised f.file warning Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 13:04 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-02 21:23 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-11-02 0:38 ` [PATCH 2/6] xfs: growfs: don't read garbage for new secondary superblocks Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 0:38 ` [PATCH 3/6] xfs: invalidate allocbt blocks moved to the free list Dave Chinner
2012-10-09 19:11 ` [PATCH] xfs: report projid32bit feature in geometry call Eric Sandeen
2012-10-09 19:28 ` Carlos Maiolino
2012-10-09 19:45 ` Dave Chinner
2012-10-11 0:02 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-10-30 19:43 ` Ben Myers
2012-10-30 19:44 ` Eric Sandeen
2012-11-08 16:12 ` Ben Myers
2012-11-02 21:23 ` [PATCH 3/6] xfs: invalidate allocbt blocks moved to the free list Mark Tinguely
2012-11-02 0:38 ` [PATCH 4/6] xfs: don't vmap inode cluster buffers during free Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 13:05 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-02 21:24 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-11-02 0:38 ` [PATCH 5/6] xfs: fix buffer shudown reference count mismatch Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 2:43 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 3:23 ` [PATCH 5/6 V2] " Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 13:17 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-11-02 13:13 ` [PATCH 5/6] " Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-02 17:10 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-11-02 23:47 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-06 12:59 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-06 19:59 ` Dave Chinner [this message]
2012-11-02 0:38 ` [PATCH 6/6] xfs: fix reading of wrapped log data Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 13:07 ` Christoph Hellwig
2012-11-02 23:51 ` Dave Chinner
2012-11-02 21:24 ` Mark Tinguely
2012-11-07 20:56 ` [PATCH 0/6] xfs: fixes for 3.7-rc3 Dave Chinner
2012-11-08 16:34 ` Ben Myers
2012-11-08 16:15 ` Ben Myers
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=20121106195940.GA24575@dastard \
--to=david@fromorbit.com \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=xfs@oss.sgi.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