When bcache is in writeback mode, and with heavy write I/O, a warning by
lockdep check reports a potential circular locking issue,
[ 58.084940] ======================================================
[ 58.084941] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 58.084942] 4.14.0-1-default+ #3 Tainted: G W
[ 58.084943] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 58.084944] kworker/0:3/1140 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 58.084945] (&bch_register_lock){+.+.}, at: [<ffffffffa069a29b>] update_writeback_rate+0x8b/0x290 [bcache]
[ 58.084958]
but task is already holding lock:
[ 58.084958] (&dc->writeback_lock){++++}, at: [<ffffffffa069a22f>] update_writeback_rate+0x1f/0x290 [bcache]
[ 58.084966]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
[ 58.084966]
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 58.084967]
-> #1 (&dc->writeback_lock){++++}:
[ 58.084972] down_write+0x51/0xb0
[ 58.084978] bch_cached_dev_attach+0x239/0x500 [bcache]
[ 58.084983] run_cache_set+0x683/0x880 [bcache]
[ 58.084987] register_bcache+0xec7/0x1450 [bcache]
[ 58.084990] kernfs_fop_write+0x10e/0x1a0
[ 58.084994] __vfs_write+0x23/0x150
[ 58.084995] vfs_write+0xc2/0x1c0
[ 58.084996] SyS_write+0x45/0xa0
[ 58.084997] entry_SYSCALL_64_fastpath+0x23/0x9a
[ 58.084998]
-> #0 (&bch_register_lock){+.+.}:
[ 58.085002] lock_acquire+0xd4/0x220
[ 58.085003] __mutex_lock+0x70/0x950
[ 58.085009] update_writeback_rate+0x8b/0x290 [bcache]
[ 58.085011] process_one_work+0x1e5/0x5e0
[ 58.085012] worker_thread+0x4a/0x3f0
[ 58.085014] kthread+0x141/0x180
[ 58.085015] ret_from_fork+0x24/0x30
[ 58.085015]
other info that might help us debug this:
[ 58.085015] Possible unsafe locking scenario:
[ 58.085016] CPU0 CPU1
[ 58.085016] ---- ----
[ 58.085016] lock(&dc->writeback_lock);
[ 58.085017] lock(&bch_register_lock);
[ 58.085018] lock(&dc->writeback_lock);
[ 58.085019] lock(&bch_register_lock);
[ 58.085019]
*** DEADLOCK ***
This is a real circular locking issue, it may hold dc->writeback_lock
for long time, block btree related operations, introduce long latency
for front end I/O requests on cache device.
The code path of bch_cached_dev_attach() firstly aquires bch_register_lock
then acquires dc->writeback_lock. And code path of kworker function
update_writeback_rate() firstly acquires dc->writeback_lock then acquires
bch_register_lock.
In kworker function update_writeback_rate(), mutex dc->writeback_lock is
acquired before calling __update_writeback_rate(). After read the code
carefully it seems holding dc->writeback_lock in update_writeback_rate()
is unncessary. Let me explain why.
In __update_writeback_rate(), when bcache_flash_devs_sectors_dirty() is
called, mutex bch_register_lock is acquired to prevent bcache devices
changes (add/remove) from the cache set, which is necessary. But rested
global objects do not need writeback_lock protection.
Let's see each global objects referenced in __update_writeback_rate(),
- The following 3 objects are only read and always same value. They don't
need to be protected by dc->writeback_lock.
dc->disk.c
c->nbuckets
c->sb.bucket_size
- The following objects are only changed and referenced inside non re-
entrancy function __update_writeback_rate(), then don't need to be
protected by dc->writeback_lock.
dc->writeback_rate_p_term_inverse
dc->writeback_rate_integral
dc->writeback_rate_update_seconds
dc->writeback_rate_i_term_inverse
dc->writeback_rate_minimum
dc->writeback_rate_proportional
dc->writeback_rate_integral_scaled
dc->writeback_rate_change
dc->writeback_rate_target
- dc->writeback_percent
Only changed via sysfs interface in runtime, and it is a 8bit variable,
it is safe to access without dc->writeback_lock.
- c->cached_dev_sectors
This is a 64bit variable, updated in calc_cached_dev_sectors() and
only read in __update_writeback_rate(). Change it into atomic64_t will
be safe enough on both 32bit and 64bit hardware.
- bcache_dev_sectors_dirty()
Inside this function, d->nr_stripes is a consistent number in run time,
stripe_sectors_dirty on each stripe is atomic_t, they are updated in
bcache_dev_sectors_dirty_add() and only read in function
bcache_dev_sectors_dirty(). It is safe to access these varaibles without
dc->writeback_lock. And if the bcache is removing from cache set, its
cached device's writebackrate update kworker should be canceled firstly,
so we don't need to worry about a NULL pointer dereference if bcache
device is removed when bcache_dev_sectors_dirty() is executing.
- dc->writeback_rate.next
writeback_rate.next is only read in __update_writeback_rate() and
updated in bch_next_delay(). bch_next_delay() is referenced by
writeback_delay()<-read_dirty()<-bch_writeback_thread(), while mutex
dc->writeback_lock is not held. That is to say, current bcache code
does not protect writeback_rate.next for concurrent access at all. For
32bit hardware it might be problematic. This patch doesn't fix existing
concurrent access issue on 32bit hardware, but not make things worse
neither.
- dc->writeback_rate.rate
writeback_rate.rate is only read in bch_next_delay() and updated in
__update_writeback_rate(). Again its concurrent access is not protected
by dc->writeback_lock, it is 32bit and only modified in one thread, so
it is safe to use for now.
>From the above analysis, kworker function update_writeback_rate() can work
properly without protection of dc->writeback_lock. The writeback rate
calculation might not be extremely accurate but good enough for writeback
I/O throttle.
By removing mutex dc->writeback_lock, we can avoid a deadlock. And further
more, avoid lock contention between kworker update_writeback_rate() and
btree operations on dc->writeback_lock, which means a potential better I/O
latency for front end I/O requests. Because in writeback mode, front end
I/O request also needs to acquire dc->writeback_lock for btree operations.
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx>
---
drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h | 2 +-
drivers/md/bcache/super.c | 2 +-
drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c | 6 +-----
3 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h b/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
index 843877e017e1..1b6964077100 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/bcache.h
@@ -489,7 +489,7 @@ struct cache_set {
struct bcache_device **devices;
struct list_head cached_devs;
- uint64_t cached_dev_sectors;
+ atomic64_t cached_dev_sectors;
struct closure caching;
struct closure sb_write;
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
index b4d28928dec5..879e1a135180 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/super.c
@@ -847,7 +847,7 @@ static void calc_cached_dev_sectors(struct cache_set *c)
list_for_each_entry(dc, &c->cached_devs, list)
sectors += bdev_sectors(dc->bdev);
- c->cached_dev_sectors = sectors;
+ atomic64_set(&c->cached_dev_sectors, sectors);
}
void bch_cached_dev_run(struct cached_dev *dc)
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
index 56a37884ca8b..cec10e6345af 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
@@ -27,7 +27,7 @@ static void __update_writeback_rate(struct cached_dev *dc)
uint64_t cache_dirty_target =
div_u64(cache_sectors * dc->writeback_percent, 100);
int64_t target = div64_u64(cache_dirty_target * bdev_sectors(dc->bdev),
- c->cached_dev_sectors);
+ atomic64_read(&c->cached_dev_sectors));
/*
* PI controller:
@@ -92,14 +92,10 @@ static void update_writeback_rate(struct work_struct *work)
struct cached_dev,
writeback_rate_update);
- down_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
-
if (atomic_read(&dc->has_dirty) &&
dc->writeback_percent)
__update_writeback_rate(dc);
- up_read(&dc->writeback_lock);
-
schedule_delayed_work(&dc->writeback_rate_update,
dc->writeback_rate_update_seconds * HZ);
}
--
2.13.6
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
