On Fri 16-08-13 16:57:39, Junxiao Bi wrote:
> There is a race between mark inode dirty and writeback thread,
> see the following scenario. In this case, writeback thread will
> not run though there is dirty_io.
>
> __mark_inode_dirty() bdi_writeback_workfn()
> ... ...
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
> ...
> if (bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi)) {
> <<< assume wb has dirty_io, so wakeup_bdi is false.
> <<< the following inode_dirty also have wakeup_bdi false.
> if (!wb_has_dirty_io(&bdi->wb))
> wakeup_bdi = true;
> }
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> <<< assume last dirty_io is removed here.
> pages_written = wb_do_writeback(wb);
> ...
> <<< work_list empty and wb has no dirty_io,
> <<< delayed_work will not be queued.
> if (!list_empty(&bdi->work_list) ||
> (wb_has_dirty_io(wb) && dirty_writeback_interval))
> queue_delayed_work(bdi_wq, &wb->dwork,
> msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10));
> spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
> <<< new dirty_io is added.
> list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &bdi->wb.b_dirty);
> spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
>
> <<< though there is dirty_io, but wakeup_bdi is false,
> <<< so writeback thread will not be waked up and
> <<< the new dirty_io will not be flushed.
> if (wakeup_bdi)
> bdi_wakeup_thread_delayed(bdi);
>
> Writeback will run until there is a new flush work queued.
> This may cause a lot of dirty pages stay in memory for a long time.
Hum, I thought I was already fixing this race but apparently I wasn't...
> Cc: Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@xxxxxxxxx>
> Signed-off-by: Junxiao Bi <junxiao.bi@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 7 ++++---
> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> index 68851ff..72e6275 100644
> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
> @@ -1140,6 +1140,8 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
> if (unlikely(block_dump))
> block_dump___mark_inode_dirty(inode);
>
> + bdi = inode_to_bdi(inode);
> + spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> spin_lock(&inode->i_lock);
Is it really necessary to move list_lock so early? Won't it be enough to
move dropping of i_lock and acquisition of list_lock just after doing
inode_to_bdi()? Then wb_has_dirty_io() and list_add() would be both under
list_lock and things should be fine and we'd have shorter critical
sections...
Honza
> if ((inode->i_state & flags) != flags) {
> const int was_dirty = inode->i_state & I_DIRTY;
> @@ -1171,7 +1173,6 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
> */
> if (!was_dirty) {
> bool wakeup_bdi = false;
> - bdi = inode_to_bdi(inode);
>
> if (bdi_cap_writeback_dirty(bdi)) {
> WARN(!test_bit(BDI_registered, &bdi->state),
> @@ -1187,10 +1188,9 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
> wakeup_bdi = true;
> }
>
> - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> - spin_lock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
> inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
> list_move(&inode->i_wb_list, &bdi->wb.b_dirty);
> + spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
>
> if (wakeup_bdi)
> @@ -1200,6 +1200,7 @@ void __mark_inode_dirty(struct inode *inode, int flags)
> }
> out_unlock_inode:
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock);
> + spin_unlock(&bdi->wb.list_lock);
>
> }
> EXPORT_SYMBOL(__mark_inode_dirty);
> --
> 1.7.9.5
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxx>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
