Hi,
On Thu 01-08-13 10:05:08, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> It hit this bug, the "Bug happened!" is come out everytime while the test
> is fail. Any suggestion for fix this?
OK, so the test is still failing after using io_end instead of
iocb->private? If yes, I'm not sure where the problem exactly is, sorry.
Honza
> On 2013/7/31 22:13, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Wed 31-07-13 10:42:37, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> >> On 2013/7/30 23:48, Jan Kara wrote:
> >>> On Tue 30-07-13 11:28:58, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> >>>> Hi, jack
> >>>>
> >>>> I test the latest kernel 3.11-rc2 and it seems the problem is fix by the
> >>>> follow patch: commit id:97a851ed71cd9cc2542955e92a001c6ea3d21d35 (ext4:
> >>>> use io_end for multiple bios). But it's so difficult to backport to
> >>>> kernel 3.4-stable, any suggestion for this?
> >>> Backporting that patch to stable kernels is no-go. It is far to intrusive
> >>> for stable kernels. I was looking for a while how that patch could fix the
> >>> problem you were observing. I think there is a subtle race possible when
> >>> AIO DIO write completes before __blockdev_direct_IO() returns. In that case
> >>> we set iocb->private to NULL in ext4_end_io_dio() but we also key off
> >>> iocb->private in ext4_ext_direct_IO() as:
> >>> if (iocb->private)
> >>> ext4_inode_aio_set(inode, NULL);
> >>>
> >>> So in the case above we forget to reset inode's AIO pointer. That can then
> >>> cause strange effects with unwritten extent handling (although I admit I'm
> >>> not sure whether it can also cause the failure you observe) and
> >>> 97a851ed71cd9cc2542955e92a001c6ea3d21d35 actually fixes that bug. You can
> >>> easily check whether you are hitting that bug or not by changing the above
> >>> condition from testing iocb->private to testing some private variable...
> >>> E.g. you could declare io_end and set it to NULL one level up in
> >>> ext4_ext_direct_IO() and then test io_end != NULL in that condition.
> >>>
> >> Thanks for your reply first.
> >> I change the code like the follow:
> >>
> >> @@ -2921,6 +2921,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb,
> >> struct inode *inode = file->f_mapping->host;
> >> ssize_t ret;
> >> size_t count = iov_length(iov, nr_segs);
> >> + ext4_io_end_t *io_end = NULL;
> >>
> >> loff_t final_size = offset + count;
> >> if (rw == WRITE && final_size <= inode->i_size) {
> >> @@ -2947,8 +2948,7 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb,
> >> iocb->private = NULL;
> >> EXT4_I(inode)->cur_aio_dio = NULL;
> >> if (!is_sync_kiocb(iocb)) {
> >> - ext4_io_end_t *io_end =
> >> - ext4_init_io_end(inode, GFP_NOFS);
> >> + io_end = ext4_init_io_end(inode, GFP_NOFS);
> >> if (!io_end)
> >> return -ENOMEM;
> >> io_end->flag |= EXT4_IO_END_DIRECT;
> >> @@ -2970,8 +2970,10 @@ static ssize_t ext4_ext_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb,
> >> ext4_end_io_dio,
> >> NULL,
> >> DIO_LOCKING);
> >> - if (iocb->private)
> >> + if (io_end != NULL) {
> >> + printk("Zhao Hongjiang Ext4 test!\n");
> >> EXT4_I(inode)->cur_aio_dio = NULL;
> >> + }
> >> /*
> >> * The io_end structure takes a reference to the inode,
> >> * that structure needs to be destroyed and the
> >>
> >> And the print come out when i run the test everytime. So i think the test
> >> hit the bug that you mentioned, Am i right or miss something?
> > It is not a bug that you hit the branch with printk(). It would be a bug
> > if the debug check looked like:
> > if (io_end != NULL) {
> > if (iocb->private == NULL)
> > printk("Bug happened!\n");
> > EXT4_I(inode)->cur_aio_dio = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > Honza
> >
> >>>> On 2013/6/9 6:30, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> >>>>> On Sat, Jun 08, 2013 at 11:13:35AM +0800, Zhao Hongjiang wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I run xfstests #239 against mainline 3.10.0-rc3, unfortunately it failure in my QEMU. I run the
> >>>>>> case a hundred times, it certainly hit the failure several times. The failure msg is as follow:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> FSTYP -- ext4
> >>>>>> PLATFORM -- Linux/x86_64 3.10.0-rc3-mainline
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> generic/239 1s ... - output mismatch (see /home/zhj/xfstests/results/generic/239.out.bad)
> >>>>>> --- tests/generic/239.out 2013-06-07 22:04:09.000000000 -0400
> >>>>>> +++ /home/zff/xfstests/results/generic/239.out.bad 2013-06-07 22:04:09.000000000 -0400
> >>>>>> @@ -1,2 +1,515 @@
> >>>>>> QA output created by 239
> >>>>>> +hostname: Host name lookup failure
> >>>>>
> >>>>> OK, so this hostname failure is weird; I'm not sure what's causing
> >>>>> this, but this I presume unrelated to the failure at hand.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Silence is golden
> >>>>>> +0: 0x0
> >>>>>> +1: 0x0
> >>>>>> +2: 0x0
> >>>>>> +3: 0x0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This indicates a problem. Test generic/239 is running
> >>>>> aio-dio-hole-filling-race.c, which submits an asynchronous, direct I/O
> >>>>> 4k write with a buffer containing non-zero contents to a sparse file,
> >>>>> and once the I/O has completed, it uses pread to read it back, using
> >>>>> the same descriptor, so it is doing the read using direct I/O. It
> >>>>> then checks to see if the read returns zero or not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The "XX: 0x0" lines indicates that buffer is zero, which implies that
> >>>>> somehow aio_complete() is getting called before the uninitialized to
> >>>>> initialized conversion is taking place. I'm not seeing how this is
> >>>>> happening, though, so I'm a bit puzzled. If there are any unwritten
> >>>>> extents, we don't call aio_complete() in ext4_end_io_dio(), but
> >>>>> instead the conversion is queued via a call to ext4_add_compete_io(),
> >>>>> and and aio_done() is only called on the iocb after the conversion is
> >>>>> complete.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Can anyone see something that I might be missing?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> - Ted
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.S. Zhao, what was the hardware that you using to find this failure?
> >>>>> I'm not seeing it, but then again if the failure is only happening
> >>>>> once every few hundred runs that might explain it. I'm perhaps
> >>>>> wondering if we should add a mode to aio-dio-hole-filling-race.c which
> >>>>> allows it to try the race a large number of times, instead of just
> >>>>> once.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> P.P.S. One thought.... perhaps it might be useful to have a debug
> >>>>> mode where we use queue_delayed_work() to submit the conversion
> >>>>> request to the workqueue. It will of course make certain workloads
> >>>>> run slow as molasses, but it might expose some races so we can see
> >>>>> them more easily.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> .
>
>
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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
