On Mon, Dec 7, 2020 at 5:04 AM Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Sun, Dec 06, 2020 at 02:40:46PM +0800, Yafang Shao wrote:
> > PF_FSTRANS which is used to avoid transaction reservation recursion, is
> > dropped since commit 9070733b4efa ("xfs: abstract PF_FSTRANS to
> > PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS") and commit 7dea19f9ee63 ("mm: introduce
> > memalloc_nofs_{save,restore} API") and replaced by PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS which
> > means to avoid filesystem reclaim recursion. That change is subtle.
> > Let's take the exmple of the check of WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags &
> > PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS)) to explain why this abstraction from PF_FSTRANS to
> > PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS is not proper.
> > Below comment is quoted from Dave,
> > > It wasn't for memory allocation recursion protection in XFS - it was for
> > > transaction reservation recursion protection by something trying to flush
> > > data pages while holding a transaction reservation. Doing
> > > this could deadlock the journal because the existing reservation
> > > could prevent the nested reservation for being able to reserve space
> > > in the journal and that is a self-deadlock vector.
> > > IOWs, this check is not protecting against memory reclaim recursion
> > > bugs at all (that's the previous check [1]). This check is
> > > protecting against the filesystem calling writepages directly from a
> > > context where it can self-deadlock.
> > > So what we are seeing here is that the PF_FSTRANS ->
> > > PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS abstraction lost all the actual useful information
> > > about what type of error this check was protecting against.
> >
> > As a result, we should reintroduce PF_FSTRANS. As current->journal_info
> > isn't used in XFS, we can reuse it to indicate whehter the task is in
> > fstrans or not, Per Willy. To achieve that, some new helpers are introduce
> > in this patch, per Dave:
> > - xfs_trans_context_set()
> > Used in xfs_trans_alloc()
> > - xfs_trans_context_clear()
> > Used in xfs_trans_commit() and xfs_trans_cancel()
> > - xfs_trans_context_active()
> > To check whehter current is in fs transcation or not
> >
> > Darrick helped fix the error occurred in xfs/141.[2]
> >
> > No obvious error occurred when I run xfstests in my test machine.
> >
> > [1]. Below check is to avoid memory reclaim recursion.
> > if (WARN_ON_ONCE((current->flags & (PF_MEMALLOC|PF_KSWAPD)) ==
> > PF_MEMALLOC))
> > goto redirty;
> >
> > [2]. https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20201104001649.GN7123@magnolia/
> >
> > Cc: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Matthew Wilcox (Oracle) <willy@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxx>
> > Cc: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Michal Hocko <mhocko@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: David Howells <dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Signed-off-by: Yafang Shao <laoar.shao@xxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
> > fs/iomap/buffered-io.c | 7 -------
> > fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++--
> > fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h | 4 ----
> > fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c | 25 +++++++++++++------------
> > fs/xfs/xfs_trans.h | 23 +++++++++++++++++++++++
> > 5 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
> > index 10cc7979ce38..3c53fa6ce64d 100644
> > --- a/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
> > +++ b/fs/iomap/buffered-io.c
> > @@ -1458,13 +1458,6 @@ iomap_do_writepage(struct page *page, struct writeback_control *wbc, void *data)
> > PF_MEMALLOC))
> > goto redirty;
> >
> > - /*
> > - * Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
> > - * never be called in a recursive filesystem reclaim context.
> > - */
> > - if (WARN_ON_ONCE(current->flags & PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS))
> > - goto redirty;
> > -
>
> So this would have given us a warning if something went wrong...
>
> > @@ -568,6 +569,16 @@ xfs_vm_writepage(
> > {
> > struct xfs_writepage_ctx wpc = { };
> >
> > + /*
> > + * Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
> > + * never be called while in a filesystem transaction.
> > + */
> > + if (xfs_trans_context_active()) {
> > + redirty_page_for_writepage(wbc, page);
> > + unlock_page(page);
> > + return 0;
> > + }
> > +
> > return iomap_writepage(page, wbc, &wpc.ctx, &xfs_writeback_ops);
> > }
> >
> > @@ -579,6 +590,14 @@ xfs_vm_writepages(
> > struct xfs_writepage_ctx wpc = { };
> >
> > xfs_iflags_clear(XFS_I(mapping->host), XFS_ITRUNCATED);
> > +
> > + /*
> > + * Given that we do not allow direct reclaim to call us, we should
> > + * never be called while in a filesystem transaction.
> > + */
> > + if (xfs_trans_context_active())
> > + return 0;
> > +
> > return iomap_writepages(mapping, wbc, &wpc.ctx, &xfs_writeback_ops);
> > }
>
> But neither of these will trigger a warning at all, so we won't know
> that there's a bug in the code at all. Given this is primarily a "we
> have a bug in the code" deadlock avoidance check, we really need the
> noisy warnings if these fire...
>
I will add the warning back in the next version.
> > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > index c94e71f741b6..09ae5c181299 100644
> > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_trans.c
> > @@ -67,6 +67,11 @@ xfs_trans_free(
> > xfs_extent_busy_sort(&tp->t_busy);
> > xfs_extent_busy_clear(tp->t_mountp, &tp->t_busy, false);
> >
> > + /* Detach the transaction from this thread. */
> > + ASSERT(current->journal_info != NULL);
> > + if (current->journal_info == tp)
> > + xfs_trans_context_clear(tp);
>
> From the context of this patch and the code it is replacing, I have
> no idea why this condition could occur, so this needs a comment
> explaining when current->journal_info is not equal to the
> transaction we are freeing.
>
Right. I think we can remove this check.
> > +
> > trace_xfs_trans_free(tp, _RET_IP_);
> > if (!(tp->t_flags & XFS_TRANS_NO_WRITECOUNT))
> > sb_end_intwrite(tp->t_mountp->m_super);
> > @@ -119,7 +124,11 @@ xfs_trans_dup(
> >
> > ntp->t_rtx_res = tp->t_rtx_res - tp->t_rtx_res_used;
> > tp->t_rtx_res = tp->t_rtx_res_used;
> > +
> > + /* Associate the new transaction with this thread. */
> > + ASSERT(current->journal_info == tp);
> > ntp->t_pflags = tp->t_pflags;
> > + current->journal_info = ntp;
>
> Why is this open coded and not in a helper like all the
> current->journal_info manipulations? Something like
> xfs_trans_context_swap(tp, ntp) with a comment explaining that it is
> used to transfer the transaction context when rolling a permanent
> transaction?
>
Sure, I will use a wrapper.
> >
> > /* move deferred ops over to the new tp */
> > xfs_defer_move(ntp, tp);
> > @@ -153,8 +162,6 @@ xfs_trans_reserve(
> > int error = 0;
> > bool rsvd = (tp->t_flags & XFS_TRANS_RESERVE) != 0;
> >
> > - /* Mark this thread as being in a transaction */
> > - current_set_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
> >
> > /*
> > * Attempt to reserve the needed disk blocks by decrementing
> > @@ -163,10 +170,8 @@ xfs_trans_reserve(
> > */
> > if (blocks > 0) {
> > error = xfs_mod_fdblocks(mp, -((int64_t)blocks), rsvd);
> > - if (error != 0) {
> > - current_restore_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
> > + if (error != 0)
> > return -ENOSPC;
> > - }
> > tp->t_blk_res += blocks;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -241,8 +246,6 @@ xfs_trans_reserve(
> > tp->t_blk_res = 0;
> > }
> >
> > - current_restore_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
> > -
> > return error;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -284,6 +287,8 @@ xfs_trans_alloc(
> > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&tp->t_dfops);
> > tp->t_firstblock = NULLFSBLOCK;
> >
> > + /* Mark this thread as being in a transaction */
> > + xfs_trans_context_set(tp);
> > error = xfs_trans_reserve(tp, resp, blocks, rtextents);
> > if (error) {
> > xfs_trans_cancel(tp);
>
> This refactoring should probably be a separate patch, done first.
>
Sure.
> > @@ -878,7 +883,6 @@ __xfs_trans_commit(
> >
> > xfs_log_commit_cil(mp, tp, &commit_lsn, regrant);
> >
> > - current_restore_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
> > xfs_trans_free(tp);
> >
> > /*
> > @@ -910,7 +914,7 @@ __xfs_trans_commit(
> > xfs_log_ticket_ungrant(mp->m_log, tp->t_ticket);
> > tp->t_ticket = NULL;
> > }
> > - current_restore_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
> > +
> > xfs_trans_free_items(tp, !!error);
> > xfs_trans_free(tp);
> >
> > @@ -970,9 +974,6 @@ xfs_trans_cancel(
> > tp->t_ticket = NULL;
> > }
> >
> > - /* mark this thread as no longer being in a transaction */
> > - current_restore_flags_nested(&tp->t_pflags, PF_MEMALLOC_NOFS);
> > -
> > xfs_trans_free_items(tp, dirty);
> > xfs_trans_free(tp);
> > }
>
> And moving current_restore_flags_nested() into xfs_trans_free()
> should also probably be a separate patch.
>
Sure.
> That way this patch is simply changing all the flags manipulations
> to use the new wrappers, and not a mix of refactoring and API
> rework...
>
Good suggestion. Thanks.
--
Thanks
Yafang
