On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 00:37 +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > This patch fixed a few races between direct IO and kjournald commit
> > transaction. An unexpected EIO error gets returned to direct IO
> > caller when it failed to free those data buffers. This could be
> > reproduced easily with parallel direct write and buffered write to the
> > same file
> >
> > More specific, those races could cause journal_try_to_free_buffers()
> > fail to free the data buffers, when jbd is committing the transaction
> > that has those data buffers on its t_syncdata_list or t_locked_list.
> > journal_commit_transaction() still holds the reference to those
> > buffers before data reach to disk and buffers are removed from the
> > t_syncdata_list of t_locked_list. This prevent the concurrent
> > journal_try_to_free_buffers() to free those buffers at the same time,
> > but cause EIO error returns back to direct IO.
> >
> > With this patch, in case of direct IO and when try_to_free_buffers() failed,
> > let's waiting for journal_commit_transaction() to finish
> > flushing the current committing transaction's data buffers to disk,
> > then try to free those buffers again.
> If Andrew or Christoph wouldn't beat you for "inventive use" of
> gfp_mask, I'm fine with the patch as well ;). You can add
> Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
>
This is less intrusive way to fix this problem. The gfp_mask was marked
as unused in try_to_free_page(). I looked at filesystems in the kernel,
there is only a few defined releasepage() callback, and only xfs checks
the flag(but not used). btrfs is actually using it though. I thought
about the way you have suggested, i.e.clean up this gfp_mask and and
replace with a flag. I am not entirely sure if it we need to change the
address_space_operations and fix all the filesystems for this matter.
Andrew, what do you think? Is this approach acceptable?
Thanks and regards,
Mingming
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Mingming Cao <cmm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Reviewed-by: Badari Pulavarty <pbadari@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/jbd/transaction.c | 57 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > mm/truncate.c | 3 +-
> > 2 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > Index: linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/jbd/transaction.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.26-rc2.orig/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2008-05-16 11:51:02.000000000 -0700
> > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc2/fs/jbd/transaction.c 2008-05-16 13:43:02.000000000 -0700
> > @@ -1648,12 +1648,39 @@ out:
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > +/*
> > + * journal_try_to_free_buffers() could race with journal_commit_transaction()
> > + * The later might still hold the reference count to the buffers when inspecting
> > + * them on t_syncdata_list or t_locked_list.
> > + *
> > + * Journal_try_to_free_buffers() will call this function to
> > + * wait for the current transaction to finish syncing data buffers, before
> > + * try to free that buffer.
> > + *
> > + * Called with journal->j_state_lock hold.
> > + */
> > +static void journal_wait_for_transaction_sync_data(journal_t *journal)
> > +{
> > + transaction_t *transaction = NULL;
> > + tid_t tid;
> > +
> > + transaction = journal->j_committing_transaction;
> > +
> > + if (!transaction)
> > + return;
> > +
> > + tid = transaction->t_tid;
> > + spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > + log_wait_commit(journal, tid);
> > + spin_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > +}
> >
> > /**
> > * int journal_try_to_free_buffers() - try to free page buffers.
> > * @journal: journal for operation
> > * @page: to try and free
> > - * @unused_gfp_mask: unused
> > + * @gfp_mask: unused for allocation purpose. Here is used
> > + * as a flag to tell if direct IO is attemping to free buffers.
> > *
> > *
> > * For all the buffers on this page,
> > @@ -1682,9 +1709,11 @@ out:
> > * journal_try_to_free_buffer() is changing its state. But that
> > * cannot happen because we never reallocate freed data as metadata
> > * while the data is part of a transaction. Yes?
> > + *
> > + * Return 0 on failure, 1 on success
> > */
> > int journal_try_to_free_buffers(journal_t *journal,
> > - struct page *page, gfp_t unused_gfp_mask)
> > + struct page *page, gfp_t gfp_mask)
> > {
> > struct buffer_head *head;
> > struct buffer_head *bh;
> > @@ -1713,7 +1742,31 @@ int journal_try_to_free_buffers(journal_
> > if (buffer_jbd(bh))
> > goto busy;
> > } while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
> > +
> > ret = try_to_free_buffers(page);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * In the case of concurrent direct IO and buffered IO,
> > + * There are a number of places where we
> > + * could race with journal_commit_transaction(), the later still
> > + * holds the reference to the buffers to free while processing them.
> > + * try_to_free_buffers() failed to free those buffers,
> > + * resulting in an unexpected EIO error
> > + * returns back to the generic_file_direct_IO()
> > + *
> > + * So let's wait for the current transaction to finish flush of
> > + * dirty data buffers before we try to free those buffers
> > + * again. This wait is needed by direct IO code path only,
> > + * gfp_mask __GFP_REPEAT is passed from the direct IO code
> > + * path to flag if we need to wait and retry free buffers.
> > + */
> > + if (ret == 0 && gfp_mask & __GFP_REPEAT) {
> > + spin_lock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > + journal_wait_for_transaction_sync_data(journal);
> > + ret = try_to_free_buffers(page);
> > + spin_unlock(&journal->j_state_lock);
> > + }
> > +
> > busy:
> > return ret;
> > }
> > Index: linux-2.6.26-rc2/mm/truncate.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux-2.6.26-rc2.orig/mm/truncate.c 2008-05-16 11:51:02.000000000 -0700
> > +++ linux-2.6.26-rc2/mm/truncate.c 2008-05-16 13:42:18.000000000 -0700
> > @@ -346,7 +346,8 @@ invalidate_complete_page2(struct address
> > if (page->mapping != mapping)
> > return 0;
> >
> > - if (PagePrivate(page) && !try_to_release_page(page, GFP_KERNEL))
> > + if (PagePrivate(page) &&
> > + !try_to_release_page(page,GFP_KERNEL|__GFP_REPEAT))
> > return 0;
> >
> > write_lock_irq(&mapping->tree_lock);
> >
> >
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
>
> Honza
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
