Re: [PATCH] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches

xuejiufei
2017-12-12T06:04:55Z

Hi Tejun,

On 2017/12/12 上午3:50, Tejun Heo wrote:
> sync_inodes_sb() can race against cgwb (cgroup writeback) membership
> switches and fail to writeback some inodes. For example, if an inode
> switches to another wb while sync_inodes_sb() is in progress, the new
> wb might not be visible to bdi_split_work_to_wbs() at all or the inode
> might jump from a wb which hasn't issued writebacks yet to one which
> already has.
>
> This patch adds backing_dev_info->wb_switch_rwsem to synchronize cgwb
> switch path against sync_inodes_sb() so that sync_inodes_sb() is
> guaranteed to see all the target wbs and inodes can't jump wbs to
> escape syncing.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tejun Heo <tj@kernel.org>
> Reported-by: Jiufei Xue <xuejiufei@gmail.com>
> Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/dc694ae2-f07f-61e1-7097-7c8411cee12d@gmail.com
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h | 1
> mm/backing-dev.c | 3 ++
> 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -331,11 +331,22 @@ struct inode_switch_wbs_context {
> struct work_struct work;
> };
>
> +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> + down_write(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +}
> +
> +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
> +{
> + up_write(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +}
> +
> static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> {
> struct inode_switch_wbs_context *isw =
> container_of(work, struct inode_switch_wbs_context, work);
> struct inode *inode = isw->inode;
> + struct backing_dev_info *bdi = inode_to_bdi(inode);
> struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;
> struct bdi_writeback *old_wb = inode->i_wb;
> struct bdi_writeback *new_wb = isw->new_wb;
> @@ -344,6 +355,12 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(str
> void **slot;
>
> /*
> + * If @inode switches cgwb membership while sync_inodes_sb() is
> + * being issued, sync_inodes_sb() might miss it. Synchronize.
> + */
> + down_read(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +
> + /*
> * By the time control reaches here, RCU grace period has passed
> * since I_WB_SWITCH assertion and all wb stat update transactions
> * between unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin/end() are guaranteed to be
> @@ -435,6 +452,8 @@ skip_switch:
> spin_unlock(&new_wb->list_lock);
> spin_unlock(&old_wb->list_lock);
>
> + up_read(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +
> if (switched) {
> wb_wakeup(new_wb);
> wb_put(old_wb);
> @@ -475,9 +494,18 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod
> if (inode->i_state & I_WB_SWITCH)
> return;
>
> + /*
> + * Avoid starting new switches while sync_inodes_sb() is in
> + * progress. Otherwise, if the down_write protected issue path
> + * blocks heavily, we might end up starting a large number of
> + * switches which will block on the rwsem.
> + */
> + if (!down_read_trylock(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem))
> + return;
> +
> isw = kzalloc(sizeof(*isw), GFP_ATOMIC);
> if (!isw)
> - return;
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> /* find and pin the new wb */
> rcu_read_lock();
> @@ -511,12 +539,14 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod
> * Let's continue after I_WB_SWITCH is guaranteed to be visible.
> */
> call_rcu(&isw->rcu_head, inode_switch_wbs_rcu_fn);
> - return;
> + goto out_unlock;
>
> out_free:
> if (isw->new_wb)
> wb_put(isw->new_wb);
> kfree(isw);
> +out_unlock:
> + up_read(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> }
>
> /**
> @@ -893,6 +923,9 @@ fs_initcall(cgroup_writeback_init);
>
> #else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK */
>
> +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { }
> +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem(struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { }
> +
> static struct bdi_writeback *
> locked_inode_to_wb_and_lock_list(struct inode *inode)
> __releases(&inode->i_lock)
> @@ -2422,8 +2455,21 @@ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *
> return;
> WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
>
> + /*
> + * Protect against inode wb switch in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn().
> + * We want to synchronize syncs against switches. Synchronizing
> + * among syncs isn't necessary but it shouldn't matter especially
> + * as we're only protecting the issuing.
> + *
> + * Once we grab the rwsem, bdi_split_work_to_wbs() is guaranteed to
> + * see all the target wbs. If the wb membership hasn't changed,
> + * through the ordering visible to the caller; otherwise, through
> + * the transitive ordering via the rwsem.
> + */
> + bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem(bdi);
> bdi_split_work_to_wbs(bdi, &work, false);
> wb_wait_for_completion(bdi, &done);
> + bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem(bdi);
>
> wait_sb_inodes(sb);
> }
> --- a/include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h
> @@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info {
> #ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK
> struct radix_tree_root cgwb_tree; /* radix tree of active cgroup wbs */
> struct rb_root cgwb_congested_tree; /* their congested states */
> + struct rw_semaphore wb_switch_rwsem; /* no cgwb switch while syncing */
> #else
> struct bdi_writeback_congested *wb_congested;
> #endif
> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
> @@ -813,6 +813,9 @@ static int cgwb_bdi_init(struct backing_
> wb_congested_put(bdi->wb_congested);
> return err;
> }
> +
> + init_rwsem(&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem);
> +

The initialization of wb_switch_rwsem should be in
the conditional compilation of CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK,
right?

Thanks.

Xuejiufei
> return 0;
> }
>
>