On Thu, Feb 24, 2022 at 11:22:39AM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > On Thu 24-02-22 10:11:02, Byungchul Park wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 03:48:59PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > > > > KJOURNALD2(kthread) TASK1(ksys_write) TASK2(ksys_write) > > > > > > > > wait A > > > > --- stuck > > > > wait B > > > > --- stuck > > > > wait C > > > > --- stuck > > > > > > > > wake up B wake up C wake up A > > > > > > > > where: > > > > A is a wait_queue, j_wait_commit > > > > B is a wait_queue, j_wait_transaction_locked > > > > C is a rwsem, mapping.invalidate_lock > > > > > > I see. But a situation like this is not necessarily a guarantee of a > > > deadlock, is it? I mean there can be task D that will eventually call say > > > 'wake up B' and unblock everything and this is how things were designed to > > > work? Multiple sources of wakeups are quite common I'd say... What does > > > > Yes. At the very beginning when I desgined Dept, I was thinking whether > > to support multiple wakeup sources or not for a quite long time. > > Supporting it would be a better option to aovid non-critical reports. > > However, I thought anyway we'd better fix it - not urgent tho - if > > there's any single circle dependency. That's why I decided not to > > support it for now and wanted to gather the kernel guys' opinions. Thing > > is which policy we should go with. > > I see. So supporting only a single wakeup source is fine for locks I guess. > But for general wait queues or other synchronization mechanisms, I'm afraid > it will lead to quite some false positive reports. Just my 2c. Thank you for your feedback. I realized we've been using "false positive" differently. There exist the three types of code in terms of dependency and deadlock. It's worth noting that dependencies are built from between waits and events in Dept. --- case 1. Code with an actual circular dependency, but not deadlock. A circular dependency can be broken by a rescue wakeup source e.g. timeout. It's not a deadlock. If it's okay that the contexts participating in the circular dependency and others waiting for the events in the circle are stuck until it gets broken. Otherwise, say, if it's not meant, then it's anyway problematic. 1-1. What if we judge this code is problematic? 1-2. What if we judge this code is good? case 2. Code with an actual circular dependency, and deadlock. There's no other wakeup source than those within the circular dependency. Literally deadlock. It's problematic and critical. 2-1. What if we judge this code is problematic? 2-2. What if we judge this code is good? case 3. Code with no actual circular dependency, and not deadlock. Must be good. 3-1. What if we judge this code is problematic? 3-2. What if we judge this code is good? --- I call only 3-1 "false positive" circular dependency. And you call 1-1 and 3-1 "false positive" deadlock. I've been wondering if the kernel guys esp. Linus considers code with any circular dependency is problematic or not, even if it won't lead to a deadlock, say, case 1. Even though I designed Dept based on what I believe is right, of course, I'm willing to change the design according to the majority opinion. However, I would never allow case 1 if I were the owner of the kernel for better stability, even though the code works anyway okay for now. Thanks, Byungchul > > > Dept do to prevent false reports in cases like this? > > > > > > > The above is the simplest form. And it's worth noting that Dept focuses > > > > on wait and event itself rather than grabing and releasing things like > > > > lock. The following is the more descriptive form of it. > > > > > > > > KJOURNALD2(kthread) TASK1(ksys_write) TASK2(ksys_write) > > > > > > > > wait @j_wait_commit > > > > ext4_truncate_failed_write() > > > > down_write(mapping.invalidate_lock) > > > > > > > > ext4_truncate() > > > > ... > > > > wait @j_wait_transaction_locked > > > > > > > > ext_truncate_failed_write() > > > > down_write(mapping.invalidate_lock) > > > > > > > > ext4_should_retry_alloc() > > > > ... > > > > __jbd2_log_start_commit() > > > > wake_up(j_wait_commit) > > > > jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() > > > > wake_up(j_wait_transaction_locked) > > > > up_write(mapping.invalidate_lock) > > > > > > > > I hope this would help you understand the report. > > > > > > I see, thanks for explanation! So the above scenario is impossible because > > > > My pleasure. > > > > > for anyone to block on @j_wait_transaction_locked the transaction must be > > > committing, which is done only by kjournald2 kthread and so that thread > > > cannot be waiting at @j_wait_commit. Essentially blocking on > > > @j_wait_transaction_locked means @j_wait_commit wakeup was already done. > > > > kjournal2 repeatedly does the wait and the wake_up so the above scenario > > looks possible to me even based on what you explained. Maybe I should > > understand how the journal things work more for furhter discussion. Your > > explanation is so helpful. Thank you really. > > OK, let me provide you with more details for better understanding :) In > jbd2 we have an object called 'transaction'. This object can go through > many states but for our case is important that transaction is moved to > T_LOCKED state and out of it only while jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() > function is executing and waiting on j_wait_transaction_locked waitqueue is > exactly waiting for a transaction to get out of T_LOCKED state. Function > jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() is executed only by kjournald. Hence > anyone can see transaction in T_LOCKED state only if kjournald is running > inside jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() and thus kjournald cannot be > sleeping on j_wait_commit at the same time. Does this explain things? > > Honza > -- > Jan Kara <jack@xxxxxxxx> > SUSE Labs, CR
