Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] fuse: Fix possible deadlock when writing back dirty pages

Peng Tao
2021-04-14T12:23:00Z

On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 5:42 PM Miklos Szeredi <miklos@szeredi.hu> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 3:23 PM Baolin Wang
> <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Miklos,
> >
> > 在 2021/3/27 14:36, Baolin Wang 写道:
> > > We can meet below deadlock scenario when writing back dirty pages, and
> > > writing files at the same time. The deadlock scenario can be reproduced
> > > by:
> > >
> > > - A writeback worker thread A is trying to write a bunch of dirty pages by
> > > fuse_writepages(), and the fuse_writepages() will lock one page (named page 1),
> > > add it into rb_tree with setting writeback flag, and unlock this page 1,
> > > then try to lock next page (named page 2).
> > >
> > > - But at the same time a file writing can be triggered by another process B,
> > > to write several pages by fuse_perform_write(), the fuse_perform_write()
> > > will lock all required pages firstly, then wait for all writeback pages
> > > are completed by fuse_wait_on_page_writeback().
> > >
> > > - Now the process B can already lock page 1 and page 2, and wait for page 1
> > > waritehack is completed (page 1 is under writeback set by process A). But
> > > process A can not complete the writeback of page 1, since it is still
> > > waiting for locking page 2, which was locked by process B already.
> > >
> > > A deadlock is occurred.
> > >
> > > To fix this issue, we should make sure each page writeback is completed
> > > after lock the page in fuse_fill_write_pages() separately, and then write
> > > them together when all pages are stable.
> > >
> > > [1450578.772896] INFO: task kworker/u259:6:119885 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > [1450578.796179] kworker/u259:6 D 0 119885 2 0x00000028
> > > [1450578.796185] Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-0:78)
> > > [1450578.796188] Call trace:
> > > [1450578.798804] __switch_to+0xd8/0x148
> > > [1450578.802458] __schedule+0x280/0x6a0
> > > [1450578.806112] schedule+0x34/0xe8
> > > [1450578.809413] io_schedule+0x20/0x40
> > > [1450578.812977] __lock_page+0x164/0x278
> > > [1450578.816718] write_cache_pages+0x2b0/0x4a8
> > > [1450578.820986] fuse_writepages+0x84/0x100 [fuse]
> > > [1450578.825592] do_writepages+0x58/0x108
> > > [1450578.829412] __writeback_single_inode+0x48/0x448
> > > [1450578.834217] writeback_sb_inodes+0x220/0x520
> > > [1450578.838647] __writeback_inodes_wb+0x50/0xe8
> > > [1450578.843080] wb_writeback+0x294/0x3b8
> > > [1450578.846906] wb_do_writeback+0x2ec/0x388
> > > [1450578.850992] wb_workfn+0x80/0x1e0
> > > [1450578.854472] process_one_work+0x1bc/0x3f0
> > > [1450578.858645] worker_thread+0x164/0x468
> > > [1450578.862559] kthread+0x108/0x138
> > > [1450578.865960] INFO: task doio:207752 blocked for more than 120 seconds.
> > > [1450578.888321] doio D 0 207752 207740 0x00000000
> > > [1450578.888329] Call trace:
> > > [1450578.890945] __switch_to+0xd8/0x148
> > > [1450578.894599] __schedule+0x280/0x6a0
> > > [1450578.898255] schedule+0x34/0xe8
> > > [1450578.901568] fuse_wait_on_page_writeback+0x8c/0xc8 [fuse]
> > > [1450578.907128] fuse_perform_write+0x240/0x4e0 [fuse]
> > > [1450578.912082] fuse_file_write_iter+0x1dc/0x290 [fuse]
> > > [1450578.917207] do_iter_readv_writev+0x110/0x188
> > > [1450578.921724] do_iter_write+0x90/0x1c8
> > > [1450578.925598] vfs_writev+0x84/0xf8
> > > [1450578.929071] do_writev+0x70/0x110
> > > [1450578.932552] __arm64_sys_writev+0x24/0x30
> > > [1450578.936727] el0_svc_common.constprop.0+0x80/0x1f8
> > > [1450578.941694] el0_svc_handler+0x30/0x80
> > > [1450578.945606] el0_svc+0x10/0x14
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Peng Tao <tao.peng@linux.alibaba.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang <baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com>
> >
> > Do you have any comments for this patch set? Thanks.
>
> Hi,
>
> I guess this is related:
>
> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-fsdevel/20210209100115.GB1208880@miu.piliscsaba.redhat.com/
>
> Can you verify that the patch at the above link fixes your issue?
>
Hi Miklos,

Copying the referred patch here for better discussion.

> --- a/fs/fuse/file.c
> +++ b/fs/fuse/file.c
> @@ -1117,17 +1117,12 @@ static ssize_t fuse_send_write_pages(str
> count = ia->write.out.size;
> for (i = 0; i < ap->num_pages; i++) {
> struct page *page = ap->pages[i];
> + bool page_locked = ap->page_locked && (i == ap->num_pages - 1);
Any reason for just handling the last locked page in the page array?
To be specific, it look like the first page in the array can also be
partial dirty and locked?

>
> - if (!err && !offset && count >= PAGE_SIZE)
> - SetPageUptodate(page);
> -
> - if (count > PAGE_SIZE - offset)
> - count -= PAGE_SIZE - offset;
> - else
> - count = 0;
> - offset = 0;
> -
> - unlock_page(page);
> + if (err)
> + ClearPageUptodate(page);
> + if (page_locked)
> + unlock_page(page);
> put_page(page);
> }
>
> @@ -1191,6 +1186,16 @@ static ssize_t fuse_fill_write_pages(str
> if (offset == PAGE_SIZE)
> offset = 0;
>
> + /* If we copied full page, mark it uptodate */
> + if (tmp == PAGE_SIZE)
> + SetPageUptodate(page);
> +
> + if (PageUptodate(page)) {
> + unlock_page(page);
> + } else {
> + ap->page_locked = true;
> + break;
> + }
Is it possible to still have two pages locked before we start to issue
WRITEs? The deadlock found by Baolin is a stable page handling issue
between fuse_fill_write_pages() and write_cache_pages(). It seems that
as long as we ever lock two or more pages at the same time during
fuse_fill_write_pages(), the race window is there since
write_cache_pages() can set the PG_DIRTY on one page and block locking
the others, whereas fuse_fill_write_pages() can lock all related pages
and block waiting for writeback.

To illustrate the deadlock:

write_cache_pages() fuse_perform_write()
lock page A
set PG_DIRTY on page A
lock
page A and page B in fuse_fill_write_pages()
wait for
page A and page B writeback in fuse_send_write_pages()
lock page B

Then write_cache_pages() is blocked waiting to lock page B, which page
B is locked by fuse_perform_write() waiting for page A to be written
back.

Cheers,
Tao

> if (!fc->big_writes)
> break;

--
Into Sth. Rich & Strange