From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from relay.sgi.com (relay3.corp.sgi.com [198.149.34.15]) by oss.sgi.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 053B87F56 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:14:53 -0500 (CDT) Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2013 17:14:49 -0500 From: Ben Myers Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] xfs: xfs_remove deadlocks due to inverted AGF vs AGI lock ordering Message-ID: <20130930221449.GP1935@sgi.com> References: <1380497826-13474-1-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> <1380497826-13474-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1380497826-13474-4-git-send-email-david@fromorbit.com> List-Id: XFS Filesystem from SGI List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com Sender: xfs-bounces@oss.sgi.com To: Dave Chinner Cc: xfs@oss.sgi.com Hi Dave, On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 09:37:05AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote: > From: Dave Chinner > > Removing an inode from the namespace involves removing the directory > entry and dropping the link count on the inode. Removing the > directory entry can result in locking an AGF (directory blocks were > freed) and removing a link count can result in placing the inode on > an unlinked list which results in locking an AGI. > > The big problem here is that we have an ordering constraint on AGF > and AGI locking - inode allocation locks the AGI, then can allocate > a new extent for new inodes, locking the AGF after the AGI. > Similarly, freeing the inode removes the inode from the unlinked > list, requiring that we lock the AGI first, and then freeing the > inode can result in an inode chunk being freed and hence freeing > disk space requiring that we lock an AGF. > > Hence the ordering that is imposed by other parts of the code is AGI > before AGF. This means we cannot remove the directory entry before > we drop the inode reference count and put it on the unlinked list as > this results in a lock order of AGF then AGI, and this can deadlock > against inode allocation and freeing. Therefore we must drop the > link counts before we remove the directory entry. > > This is still safe from a transactional point of view - it is not > until we get to xfs_bmap_finish() that we have the possibility of > multiple transactions in this operation. Hence as long as we remove > the directory entry and drop the link count in the first transaction > of the remove operation, there are no transactional constraints on > the ordering here. > > Change the ordering of the operations in the xfs_remove() function > to align the ordering of AGI and AGF locking to match that of the > rest of the code. > > Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner Hmmm.. I'm not quite comfortable with this one yet... It'll probably be better after some more review. Did you happen to have a test case to go with this? Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ xfs mailing list xfs@oss.sgi.com http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs