On 5/3/11 2:27 AM, Surbhi Palande wrote:
> On 05/02/2011 05:04 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
>> On 5/2/11 8:22 AM, Surbhi Palande wrote:
>>> On 05/02/2011 04:16 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>> On Mon 02-05-11 15:30:23, Surbhi Palande wrote:
>>>>> On 05/02/2011 03:20 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon 02-05-11 14:27:51, Surbhi Palande wrote:
>>>>>>> On 05/02/2011 01:56 PM, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon 02-05-11 12:07:59, Surbhi Palande wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 04/06/2011 02:21 PM, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 08:18:56AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed 06-04-11 15:40:05, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 01, 2011 at 04:08:56PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri 01-04-11 10:40:50, Dave Chinner wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you don't allow the page to be dirtied in the fist place, then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing needs to be done to the writeback path because there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nothing dirty for it to write back.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure but that's only the problem he was able to hit. But generally,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> there's a problem with needing s_umount for unfreezing because it isn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>> clear there aren't other code paths which can block with s_umount held
>>>>>>>>>>>>> waiting for fs to get unfrozen. And these code paths would cause the same
>>>>>>>>>>>>> deadlock. That's why I chose to get rid of s_umount during thawing.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Holding the s_umount lock while checking if frozen and sleeping
>>>>>>>>>>>> is essentially an ABBA lock inversion bug that can bite in many more
>>>>>>>>>>>> places that just thawing the filesystem. Any where this is done should
>>>>>>>>>>>> be fixed, so I don't think just removing the s_umount lock from the thaw
>>>>>>>>>>>> path is sufficient to avoid problems.
>>>>>>>>>>> That's easily said but hard to do - any transaction start in ext3/4 may
>>>>>>>>>>> block on filesystem being frozen (this seems to be similar for XFS as I'm
>>>>>>>>>>> looking into the code) and transaction start traditionally nests inside
>>>>>>>>>>> s_umount (and basically there's no way around that since sync() calls your
>>>>>>>>>>> fs code with s_umount held).
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, but the question must be asked - why is ext3/4 even starting a
>>>>>>>>>> transaction on a clean filesystem during sync? A frozen filesystem,
>>>>>>>>>> by definition, is a clean filesytem, and therefore sync calls of any
>>>>>>>>>> kind should not be trying to write to the FS or start transactions.
>>>>>>>>>> XFS does this just fine, so I'd consider such behaviour on a frozen
>>>>>>>>>> filesystem a bug in ext3/4...
>>>>>>>>> I had a look at the xfs code for seeing how this is done.
>>>>>>>>> xfs_file_aio_write()
>>>>>>>>> xfs_wait_for_freeze()
>>>>>>>>> vfs_check_frozen()
>>>>>>>>> So xfs_file_aio_write() writes to buffers when the FS is not frozen.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now, I want to know what stops the following scenario from happening:
>>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>>> xfs_file_aio_write()
>>>>>>>>> xfs_wait_for_freeze()
>>>>>>>>> vfs_check_frozen()
>>>>>>>>> At this point F.S was not frozen, so the next instruction in the
>>>>>>>>> xfs_file_aio_write() will be executed next.
>>>>>>>>> However at this point (i.e after checking if F.S is frozen) the
>>>>>>>>> write process gets pre-empted and say the _freeze_ process gets
>>>>>>>>> control.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now the F.S freezes and the write process gets the control back. And
>>>>>>>>> so we end up writing to the page cache when the F.S is frozen.
>>>>>>>>> --------------------
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can anyone please enlighten me on how& why this premption is _not_
>>>>>>>>> possible?
>>>>>>> Thanks for your reply.
>>>>>>>> XFS works similarly as ext4 in this regard I believe. They have the log
>>>>>>>> frozen in xfs_freeze() so if the race you describe above happens, either
>>>>>>>> the writing process gets caught waiting for log to unfreeze
>>>>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>>>> or it manages
>>>>>>>> to start a transaction and then freezing process waits for transaction to
>>>>>>>> finish before it can proceed with freezing. I'm not sure why is there the
>>>>>>>> check in xfs_file_aio_write()...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am sorry, but I don't understand how this will happen - i.e I
>>>>>>> can't understand what stops freeze_super() (or ext4_freeze) from
>>>>>>> freezing a superblock (as the write process stopped just before
>>>>>>> writing anything for this transaction and has not taken any locks?)
>>>>>> So ext4_freeze() does
>>>>>> jbd2_journal_lock_updates(journal)
>>>>>> which waits for all running transactions to finish and updates
>>>>>> j_barrier_count which stops any news ones from proceeding (check
>>>>>> function start_this_handle()).
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, but ext4_freeze() also calls
>>>>> jbd2_journal_unlock_updates(journal) which decrements the
>>>>> j_barrier_count (which was previously updated/incremented in
>>>>> jbd2_journal_lock_updates) ? before it returns. So after this call a
>>>>> new transaction/handle can be accepted/started.
>>>>>
>>>>> A comment in ext4_freeze() says:
>>>>> /* we rely on s_frozen to stop further updates */
>>>>> (before calling jbd2_journal_unlock_updates())
>>>> Ah, drat, you're right. I've missed this other part. It's the problem
>>>> that if you expect to see something, you'll see it regardless of the real
>>>> code ;).
>>>>
>>>> The fact is we do vfs_check_frozen() in ext4_journal_start_sb() but indeed
>>>> it's still racy (although the race window is relatively small) because the
>>>> filesystem can become frozen the instant after we check vfs_check_frozen().
>>>> Commit 6b0310fb broke it for ext4.
>>>>
>>>> I guess the code was mostly copied from XFS which seems to have the same
>>>> problem in xfs_trans_alloc() since the git history beginning. I see two
>>>> ways to fix this - either fix ext4/xfs to check s_frozen after starting
>>>> a transaction and if the filesystem is being frozen, we stop the
>>>> transaction, wait for fs to get unfrozen, and restart. Another option is
>>>> to create an analogous logic using a atomic counter of write ops in vfs
>>>> that could be used by all filesystems. We'd just have to replace
>>>> vfs_check_frozen() with vfs_start_write() and add vfs_stop_write() at
>>>> appropriate places...
>>> How about calling jbd2_journal_unlock_updates(EXT4_SB(sb)->s_journal);
>>> from ext4_unfreeze()?
>> we used to have that, but holding it locked until then means we exit the kernel
>> with a mutex held, which is pretty icky.
>>
>> ================================================
>> [ BUG: lock held when returning to user space! ]
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> lvcreate/1075 is leaving the kernel with locks still held!
>> 1 lock held by lvcreate/1075:
>> #0: (&journal->j_barrier){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffff811c6214>]
>> jbd2_journal_lock_updates+0xe1/0xf0
>>
>>
>> -Eric
> Should this not be reverted? I think that its a lot easier to stop a transaction between a freeze and a thaw that way! If you agree, can I send a patch for the same?
Only if you want the kernel to start spewing "BUG!" messages again...
-Eric
> Thanks!
>
> Warm Regards,
> Surbhi.
>
>
>>> So that indeed no transactions can be started before unfreeze is called.
>>>
>>> This has another advantage, that it rightfully does not let you update the access time when the F.S is frozen (touch_atime called from a read path when the F.S is frozen) Otherwise we also need to fix this path.
>>>
>>> Warm Regards,
>>> Surbhi.
>>>
>>>> Dave, Christoph, any opinions on this?
>>>> 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
>> --
>> 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
>
--
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
