From: Chris Mason <mason@suse.com>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>
Cc: mika.penttila@kolumbus.fi, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback_inodes can race with unmount
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2004 21:29:26 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1086744565.10973.192.camel@watt.suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040608145627.0191c026.akpm@osdl.org>
On Tue, 2004-06-08 at 17:56, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Chris Mason <mason@suse.com> wrote:
> > > Why don't we have the same race in the sync() path as well? Moving the
> > > locking to sync_sb_inodes() itself would fix it also.
> >
> > In the sync() path we're already taking a read lock on s_umount sem.
> > Moving the locking into sync_sb_inodes would be tricky, it is sometimes
> > called with the write lock on s_umount_sem held and sometimes with a
> > read lock.
> >
>
> Plus we'd be dead if we had to do the above. If that read_trylock() fails
> the sync() will forget to sync stuff.
>
> And, contra your description, we'll fail the trylock relatively frequently
> - when some other process is writing back this superblock.
The write lock is taken much less frequently. Should be just on
mount/unmount no?
>
> But as this codepath is never used for data-integrity writeout things
> should be OK. I'll slip a comment in there and maybe a
> BUG_ON(wbc->sync_mode == WB_SYNC_ALL).
>
> You didn't tell us where the window is? It's a bit weird that some other
> process can come in and unmount the fs while there are non-zero-refcount
> inodes floating about on the superblock.
It's the iput in sync_sb_inodes(). The test workload is 8 parallel runs
of this loop (each run to a different /dev/xxx)
while(true) ; do
mkfs /dev/xxx
mount /dev/xxx /xxx
dd if=/dev/zero of=/xxx/foo bs=1MB count=80
rm /xxx/foo
umount /dev/xxx
done
So, each FS only has a single dirty inode, and that single inode gets
deleted during the run. With enough memory pressure, write calls
frequently go into throttling, increasing the chance for sync_sb_inodes
to be called for writeback at the same time as unmount.
Right before the iput in sync_sb_inodes, we've dropped both the sb_lock
and the inode_lock, nothing prevents the unmount from continuing. The
super block won't be freed because we've got it pinned, but the unmount
can proceed.
So, it looks like we get this:
CPU 0 CPU 1
writeback_inodes generic_shutdown_super
sync_sb_inodes
iget(inode)
spin_unlock(&inode_lock)
sop->put_super(sb)
iput(inode)
generic_delete_inode()
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-09 1:32 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-08 19:22 [PATCH] writeback_inodes can race with unmount Chris Mason
2004-06-08 19:57 ` Mika Penttilä
2004-06-08 20:18 ` Chris Mason
2004-06-08 21:56 ` Andrew Morton
2004-06-09 1:29 ` Chris Mason [this message]
2004-06-09 3:22 ` Andrew Morton
2004-06-09 5:24 ` Andrew Morton
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=1086744565.10973.192.camel@watt.suse.com \
--to=mason@suse.com \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mika.penttila@kolumbus.fi \
/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