Re: [PATCH RFC 0/2] fix spinlock recursion on xa_lock in xfs_buf_item_push

[Mark Tinguely <tinguely@sgi.com>]

On 01/29/13 14:42, Brian Foster wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> This patchset fixes a spinlock recursion we've reproduced initially on RHEL
> kernels[1]. The problem is that we issue an xfs_log_force() via
> xfs_buf_trylock() with the xa_lock held and ultimately drive down into
> xlog_assign_tail_lsn(), which attempts to reacquire xa_lock[2].
>
> Note that this lockup was difficult to reproduce and I was not able to
> reproduce on an upstream kernel without a hack to comment out the pinned buf
> check in xfs_buf_item_push() (presumably because the log force itself only
> happens when the buf is pinned, so the window here is tight).

Interesting. So this a result of a change of the b_pin_count between 
xfs_buf_ispinned() and xfs_buf_trylock() tests in xfs_buf_item_push()?

>
> This patchset is what I'm testing to avoid the lockup, but I'm posting this RFC
> to get some early thoughts:
>
> - Patch 1 - Creates a flag to conditionally force the log in xfs_buf_trylock().
>    The alternative I considered is to pull out the check and log force and
>    sprinkle that code amongst the trylock callers.
> - Patch 2 - Utilizes the flag created in patch 1 and duplicates the log force
>    in xfs_buf_item_push() after dropping xa_lock.
>
> The change in patch 2 makes me wonder how important the immediate flush is in
> the context of xfsaild_push(), where we already pend up a flush if the item is
> pinned. IOWs, I wonder if replacing what I have now with something like the
> following would be acceptable and cleaner:
>
> 	if (!__xfs_buf_trylock(bp, false)) {
> 		if (xfs_buf_ispinned(bp)
> 			return XFS_ITEM_PINNED;
> 		return XFS_ITEM_LOCKED;

This looks better to me that patch 2.

> 	}
>
> Thoughts appreciated.
>
> Brian
>
> [1] - http://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=896224
> [2] - stacktrace:
>
> BUG: spinlock recursion on CPU#5, xfsaild/dm-3/2690
> Pid: 2690, comm: xfsaild/dm-3 Not tainted 3.8.0-rc1+ #46
> Call Trace:
>   [<ffffffff8163211c>] spin_dump+0x8a/0x8f
>   [<ffffffff81632142>] spin_bug+0x21/0x26
>   [<ffffffff812f66a1>] do_raw_spin_lock+0x101/0x150
>   [<ffffffff816378ce>] _raw_spin_lock+0xe/0x10
>   [<ffffffffa0522c85>] xlog_assign_tail_lsn+0x25/0x50 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0523286>] xlog_state_release_iclog+0x86/0xd0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0523c89>] xlog_write+0x569/0x710 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa052555c>] xlog_cil_push+0x29c/0x3c0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa04cbfe2>] ? xfs_buf_get_map+0xf2/0x1b0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0525d17>] xlog_cil_force_lsn+0x157/0x160 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa04cced1>] ? xfs_buf_read_map+0x31/0x130 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0529e99>] ? xfs_trans_read_buf_map+0x279/0x4b0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffff8117e45d>] ? __kmalloc+0x15d/0x1b0
>   [<ffffffffa0523f7d>] _xfs_log_force+0x6d/0x290 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa051450f>] ? xfs_iflush_cluster+0x25f/0x3d0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa05241d9>] xfs_log_force+0x39/0xc0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa04cbaa0>] xfs_buf_trylock+0xd0/0xe0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0526369>] xfs_buf_item_push+0x39/0xd0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0527bdf>] ? xfs_inode_item_push+0x8f/0x140 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffffa0528c01>] xfsaild+0x2e1/0x6e0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffff8108aa08>] ? __wake_up_common+0x58/0x90
>   [<ffffffffa0528920>] ? xfs_trans_ail_cursor_first+0xc0/0xc0 [xfs]
>   [<ffffffff81081708>] kthread+0xd8/0xe0
>   [<ffffffff81081630>] ? flush_kthread_work+0x150/0x150
>   [<ffffffff816400ac>] ret_from_fork+0x7c/0xb0
>   [<ffffffff81081630>] ? flush_kthread_work+0x150/0x150
>
> Brian Foster (2):
>    xfs: conditionally force log on trylock failure of pinned/stale buf
>    xfs: drop xa_lock around log force in xfs_buf_item push
>
>   fs/xfs/xfs_buf.c      |    8 +++++---
>   fs/xfs/xfs_buf.h      |    3 ++-
>   fs/xfs/xfs_buf_item.c |   10 +++++++++-
>   3 files changed, 16 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>

--Mark.

_______________________________________________
xfs mailing list
xfs@oss.sgi.com
http://oss.sgi.com/mailman/listinfo/xfs