Re: [resend PATCH 3/3] writeback: fix false positive WARN in __mark_inode_dirty

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 04, 2016 at 10:20:16AM -0800, Dan Williams wrote:
>> This warning was added as a debugging aid way back in commit
>> 500b067c5e6c "writeback: check for registered bdi in flusher add and
>> inode dirty" when we were switching over to per-bdi writeback.
>>
>> Once the block device has been torn down it's no longer useful to
>> complain about unregistered bdi's.  Clear the writeback capability under
>> the the wb->list_lock(), so that __mark_inode_dirty has no opportunity
>> to race bdi_unregister() to this WARN() condition.
>>
>> Alternatively we could just delete the warning...
>
> The warning is correct - the filesytem is trying to mark an inode
> dirty on a device that can't do writeback anymore. Seems to me like
> it is functioning as it should.
>
>> Found this while testing block device remove from underneath an active
>> fs triggering traces like:
>>
>>  WARNING: CPU: 6 PID: 2129 at fs/fs-writeback.c:2065 __mark_inode_dirty+0x261/0x350()
>>  bdi-block not registered
>>  [..]
>>  Call Trace:
>>   [<ffffffff81459f02>] dump_stack+0x44/0x62
>>   [<ffffffff810a1f32>] warn_slowpath_common+0x82/0xc0
>>   [<ffffffff810a1fcc>] warn_slowpath_fmt+0x5c/0x80
>>   [<ffffffff812830b1>] __mark_inode_dirty+0x261/0x350
>>   [<ffffffff8126d019>] generic_update_time+0x79/0xd0
>>   [<ffffffff8126d19d>] file_update_time+0xbd/0x110
>>   [<ffffffff812e4ab8>] ext4_dax_fault+0x68/0x110
>>   [<ffffffff811f7f3e>] __do_fault+0x4e/0xf0
>
> This seems like the problem to me - you haven't implemented a
> shutdown hook for ext4, and so it continues to allow page faults to
> make progress after the device has been removed. The DAX fault
> should have been failed before the filesystem gets to the point of
> marking the inode dirty....

xfs doesn't check that the fs is still alive before calling
file_update_time().  Also, I don't think we need/want to sprinkle "is
fs alive?" checks to address this when the block device shutdown path
can simply turn off writeback.

>
>> +     /* tell __mark_inode_dirty that writeback is no longer possible */
>> +     spin_lock(&wb->list_lock);
>> +     wb->bdi->capabilities |= BDI_CAP_NO_WRITEBACK;
>> +     spin_unlock(&wb->list_lock);
>> +
>>       spin_unlock_bh(&wb->work_lock);
>
> Is that lock ordering safe? i.e. it's inside a section using bh-safe
> locking, which tends to imply that it can run from interrupt
> contexts. Can we get something like

This would be a problem if wb_shutdown() was called from softirq
context, but it is always called from process context.  So,
->list_lock doesn't currently need to be upgraded to spin_lock_bh and
lockdep will trigger if this situation changes.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-block" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [IDE]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux