The Linux Kernel Mailing List
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
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()





  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