Re: [PATCH 2/8] xfs: don't wait on future iclogs when pushing the CIL

Darrick J. Wong
2021-06-17T17:49:12Z

On Thu, Jun 17, 2021 at 06:26:11PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
>
> The iclogbuf ring attached to the struct xlog is circular, hence the
> first and last iclogs in the ring can only be determined by
> comparing them against the log->l_iclog pointer.
>
> In xfs_cil_push_work(), we want to wait on previous iclogs that were
> issued so that we can flush them to stable storage with the commit
> record write, and it simply waits on the previous iclog in the ring.
> This, however, leads to CIL push hangs in generic/019 like so:
>
> task:kworker/u33:0 state:D stack:12680 pid: 7 ppid: 2 flags:0x00004000
> Workqueue: xfs-cil/pmem1 xlog_cil_push_work
> Call Trace:
> __schedule+0x30b/0x9f0
> schedule+0x68/0xe0
> xlog_wait_on_iclog+0x121/0x190
> ? wake_up_q+0xa0/0xa0
> xlog_cil_push_work+0x994/0xa10
> ? _raw_spin_lock+0x15/0x20
> ? xfs_swap_extents+0x920/0x920
> process_one_work+0x1ab/0x390
> worker_thread+0x56/0x3d0
> ? rescuer_thread+0x3c0/0x3c0
> kthread+0x14d/0x170
> ? __kthread_bind_mask+0x70/0x70
> ret_from_fork+0x1f/0x30
>
> With other threads blocking in either xlog_state_get_iclog_space()
> waiting for iclog space or xlog_grant_head_wait() waiting for log
> reservation space.
>
> The problem here is that the previous iclog on the ring might
> actually be a future iclog. That is, if log->l_iclog points at
> commit_iclog, commit_iclog is the first (oldest) iclog in the ring
> and there are no previous iclogs pending as they have all completed
> their IO and been activated again. IOWs, commit_iclog->ic_prev
> points to an iclog that will be written in the future, not one that
> has been written in the past.
>
> Hence, in this case, waiting on the ->ic_prev iclog is incorrect
> behaviour, and depending on the state of the future iclog, we can
> end up with a circular ABA wait cycle and we hang.
>
> The fix is made more complex by the fact that many iclogs states
> cannot be used to determine if the iclog is a past or future iclog.
> Hence we have to determine past iclogs by checking the LSN of the
> iclog rather than their state. A past ACTIVE iclog will have a LSN
> of zero, while a future ACTIVE iclog will have a LSN greater than
> the current iclog. We don't wait on either of these cases.
>
> Similarly, a future iclog that hasn't completed IO will have an LSN
> greater than the current iclog and so we don't wait on them. A past
> iclog that is still undergoing IO completion will have a LSN less
> than the current iclog and those are the only iclogs that we need to
> wait on.
>
> Hence we can use the iclog LSN to determine what iclogs we need to
> wait on here.
>
> Fixes: 5fd9256ce156 ("xfs: separate CIL commit record IO")
> Reported-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Chinner <dchinner@redhat.com>
> ---
> fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> 1 file changed, 45 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> index 705619e9dab4..2fb0ab02dda3 100644
> --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_log_cil.c
> @@ -1075,15 +1075,54 @@ xlog_cil_push_work(
> ticket = ctx->ticket;
>
> /*
> - * If the checkpoint spans multiple iclogs, wait for all previous
> - * iclogs to complete before we submit the commit_iclog. In this case,
> - * the commit_iclog write needs to issue a pre-flush so that the
> - * ordering is correctly preserved down to stable storage.
> + * If the checkpoint spans multiple iclogs, wait for all previous iclogs
> + * to complete before we submit the commit_iclog. We can't use state
> + * checks for this - ACTIVE can be either a past completed iclog or a
> + * future iclog being filled, while WANT_SYNC through SYNC_DONE can be a
> + * past or future iclog awaiting IO or ordered IO completion to be run.
> + * In the latter case, if it's a future iclog and we wait on it, the we
> + * will hang because it won't get processed through to ic_force_wait
> + * wakeup until this commit_iclog is written to disk. Hence we use the
> + * iclog header lsn and compare it to the commit lsn to determine if we
> + * need to wait on iclogs or not.
> */
> spin_lock(&log->l_icloglock);
> if (ctx->start_lsn != commit_lsn) {
> - xlog_wait_on_iclog(commit_iclog->ic_prev);
> - spin_lock(&log->l_icloglock);
> + struct xlog_in_core *iclog;
> +
> + for (iclog = commit_iclog->ic_prev;
> + iclog != commit_iclog;
> + iclog = iclog->ic_prev) {
> + xfs_lsn_t hlsn;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the LSN of the iclog is zero or in the future it
> + * means it has passed through IO completion and
> + * activation and hence all previous iclogs have also
> + * done so. We do not need to wait at all in this case.
> + */
> + hlsn = be64_to_cpu(iclog->ic_header.h_lsn);
> + if (!hlsn || XFS_LSN_CMP(hlsn, commit_lsn) > 0)
> + break;
> +
> + /*
> + * If the LSN of the iclog is older than the commit lsn,
> + * we have to wait on it. Waiting on this via the
> + * ic_force_wait should also order the completion of all
> + * older iclogs, too, but we leave checking that to the
> + * next loop iteration.
> + */
> + ASSERT(XFS_LSN_CMP(hlsn, commit_lsn) < 0);
> + xlog_wait_on_iclog(iclog);
> + spin_lock(&log->l_icloglock);

The presence of a loop here confuses me a bit -- we really only need to
check and wait on commit->ic_prev since xlog_wait_on_iclog waits for
both the iclog that it is given as well as all previous iclogs, right?

Does "we leave checking that to the next loop iteration" mean that once
we've waited on commit->ic_prev, the next iclog iterated (i.e.
commit->ic_prev->ic_prev) should break out of the loop?

--D

> + }
> +
> + /*
> + * Regardless of whether we need to wait or not, the the
> + * commit_iclog write needs to issue a pre-flush so that the
> + * ordering for this checkpoint is correctly preserved down to
> + * stable storage.
> + */
> commit_iclog->ic_flags |= XLOG_ICL_NEED_FLUSH;
> }
>
> --
> 2.31.1
>