On 6/2/23 19:29, Luís Henriques wrote:
xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx writes:
From: Xiubo Li <xiubli@xxxxxxxxxx>
The sync_filesystem() will flush all the dirty buffer and submit the
osd reqs to the osdc and then is blocked to wait for all the reqs to
finish. But the when the reqs' replies come, the reqs will be removed
from osdc just before the req->r_callback()s are called. Which means
the sync_filesystem() will be woke up by leaving the req->r_callback()s
are still running.
This will be buggy when the waiter require the req->r_callback()s to
release some resources before continuing. So we need to make sure the
req->r_callback()s are called before removing the reqs from the osdc.
WARNING: CPU: 4 PID: 168846 at fs/crypto/keyring.c:242 fscrypt_destroy_keyring+0x7e/0xd0
CPU: 4 PID: 168846 Comm: umount Tainted: G S 6.1.0-rc5-ceph-g72ead199864c #1
Hardware name: Supermicro SYS-5018R-WR/X10SRW-F, BIOS 2.0 12/17/2015
RIP: 0010:fscrypt_destroy_keyring+0x7e/0xd0
RSP: 0018:ffffc9000b277e28 EFLAGS: 00010202
RAX: 0000000000000002 RBX: ffff88810d52ac00 RCX: ffff88810b56aa00
RDX: 0000000080000000 RSI: ffffffff822f3a09 RDI: ffff888108f59000
RBP: ffff8881d394fb88 R08: 0000000000000028 R09: 0000000000000000
R10: 0000000000000001 R11: 11ff4fe6834fcd91 R12: ffff8881d394fc40
R13: ffff888108f59000 R14: ffff8881d394f800 R15: 0000000000000000
FS: 00007fd83f6f1080(0000) GS:ffff88885fd00000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
CS: 0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
CR2: 00007f918d417000 CR3: 000000017f89a005 CR4: 00000000003706e0
DR0: 0000000000000000 DR1: 0000000000000000 DR2: 0000000000000000
DR3: 0000000000000000 DR6: 00000000fffe0ff0 DR7: 0000000000000400
Call Trace:
<TASK>
generic_shutdown_super+0x47/0x120
kill_anon_super+0x14/0x30
ceph_kill_sb+0x36/0x90 [ceph]
deactivate_locked_super+0x29/0x60
cleanup_mnt+0xb8/0x140
task_work_run+0x67/0xb0
exit_to_user_mode_prepare+0x23d/0x240
syscall_exit_to_user_mode+0x25/0x60
do_syscall_64+0x40/0x80
entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x63/0xcd
RIP: 0033:0x7fd83dc39e9b
We need to increase the blocker counter to make sure all the osd
requests' callbacks have been finished just before calling the
kill_anon_super() when unmounting.
(Sorry for taking so long replying to this patch! And I've still a few
others on the queue!)
I've been looking at this patch and at patch "ceph: drop the messages from
MDS when unmounting", but I still can't say whether they are correct or
not. They seem to be working, but they don't _look_ right.
For example, mdsc->stopping is being used by ceph_dec_stopping_blocker()
and ceph_inc_stopping_blocker() for setting the ceph_mds_client state, but
the old usage for that field (e.g. in ceph_mdsc_pre_umount()) is being
kept. Is that correct? Maybe, but it looks wrong: the old usage isn't
protected by the spinlock and doesn't use the atomic counter.
This is okay, the spin lock "stopping_lock" is not trying to protect the
"stopping", and it's just trying to protect the "stopping_blockers" and
the order of accessing "fsc->mdsc->stopping" and
"fsc->mdsc->stopping_blockers", you can try without this you can
reproduce it again.
Another example: in patch "ceph: drop the messages from MDS when
unmounting" we're adding calls to ceph_inc_stopping_blocker() in
ceph_handle_caps(), ceph_handle_quota(), and ceph_handle_snap(). Are
those the only places where this is needed? Obviously not, because this
new patch is adding extra calls in the read/write paths. But maybe there
are more places...?
I have gone through all the related code and this should be all the
places, which will grab the inode, we need to do this. You can confirm that.
And another one: changing ceph_inc_stopping_blocker() to accept NULL to
distinguish between mds and osd requests makes things look even more
hacky :-(
This can be improved.
Let me update it to make it easier to read.
On the other end, I've been testing these patches thoroughly and couldn't
see any issues with them. And although I'm still not convinced that they
will not deadlock in some corner cases, I don't have a better solution
either for the problem they're solving.
FWIW you can add my:
Tested-by: Luís Henriques <lhenriques@xxxxxxx>
to this patch (the other one already has it), but I'll need to spend more
time to see if there are better solutions.
Thanks Luis for your test and review.
- Xiubo
Cheers,
