On Wed, 16 Apr 2014 14:03:35 +1000
NeilBrown <neilb@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Loop-back NFS mounts are when the NFS client and server run on the
> same host.
>
> The use-case for this is a high availability cluster with shared
> storage. The shared filesystem is mounted on any one machine and
> NFS-mounted on the others.
> If the nfs server fails, some other node will take over that service,
> and then it will have a loop-back NFS mount which needs to keep
> working.
>
> This patch set addresses the "keep working" bit and specifically
> addresses deadlocks and livelocks.
> Allowing the fail-over itself to be deadlock free is a separate
> challenge for another day.
>
> The short description of how this works is:
>
> deadlocks:
> - Elevate PF_FSTRANS to apply globally instead of just in NFS and XFS.
> PF_FSTRANS disables __GFP_NS in the same way that PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO
> disables __GFP_IO.
> - Set PF_FSTRANS in nfsd when handling requests related to
> memory reclaim, or requests which could block requests related
> to memory reclaim.
> - Use lockdep to find all consequent deadlocks from some other
> thread allocating memory while holding a lock that nfsd might
> want.
> - Fix those other deadlocks by setting PF_FSTRANS or using GFP_NOFS
> as appropriate.
>
> livelocks:
> - identify throttling during reclaim and bypass it when
> PF_LESS_THROTTLE is set
> - only set PF_LESS_THROTTLE for nfsd when handling write requests
> from the local host.
>
> The last 12 patches address various deadlocks due to locking chains.
> 11 were found by lockdep, 2 by testing. There is a reasonable chance
> that there are more, I just need to exercise more code while
> testing....
>
> There is one issue that lockdep reports which I haven't fixed (I've
> just hacked the code out for my testing). That issue relates to
> freeze_super().
> I may not be interpreting the lockdep reports perfectly, but I think
> they are basically saying that if I were to freeze a filesystem that
> was exported to the local host, then we could end up deadlocking.
> This is to be expected. The NFS filesystem would need to be frozen
> first. I don't know how to tell lockdep that I know that is a problem
> and I don't want to be warned about it. Suggestions welcome.
> Until this is addressed I cannot really ask others to test the code
> with lockdep enabled.
>
> There are more subsidiary places that I needed to add PF_FSTRANS than
> I would have liked. The thought keeps crossing my mind that maybe we
> can get rid of __GFP_FS and require that memory reclaim never ever
> block on a filesystem. Then most of these patches go away.
>
> Now that writeback doesn't happen from reclaim (but from kswapd) much
> of the calls from reclaim to FS are gone.
> The ->releasepage call is the only one that I *know* causes me
> problems so I'd like to just say that that must never block. I don't
> really understand the consequences of that though.
> There are a couple of other places where __GFP_FS is used and I'd need
> to carefully analyze those. But if someone just said "no, that is
> impossible", I could be happy and stick with the current approach....
>
> I've cc:ed Peter Zijlstra and Ingo Molnar only on the lockdep-related
> patches, Ming Lei only on the PF_MEMALLOC_NOIO related patches,
> and net-dev only on the network-related patches.
> There are probably other people I should CC. Apologies if I missed you.
> I'll ensure better coverage if the nfs/mm/xfs people are reasonably happy.
>
> Comments, criticisms, etc most welcome.
>
> Thanks,
> NeilBrown
>
I've only given this a once-over, but the basic concept seems a bit
flawed. IIUC, the basic idea is to disallow allocations done in knfsd
threads context from doing fs-based reclaim.
This seems very heavy-handed, and like it could cause problems on a
busy NFS server. Those sorts of servers are likely to have a lot of
data in pagecache and thus we generally want to allow them to do do
writeback when memory is tight.
It's generally acceptable for knfsd to recurse into local filesystem
code for writeback. What you want to avoid in this situation is reclaim
on NFS filesystems that happen to be from knfsd on the same box.
If you really want to fix this, what may make more sense is trying to
plumb that information down more granularly. Maybe GFP_NONETFS and/or
PF_NETFSTRANS flags?
>
> ---
>
> NeilBrown (19):
> Promote current_{set,restore}_flags_nested from xfs to global.
> lockdep: lockdep_set_current_reclaim_state should save old value
> lockdep: improve scenario messages for RECLAIM_FS errors.
> Make effect of PF_FSTRANS to disable __GFP_FS universal.
> SUNRPC: track whether a request is coming from a loop-back interface.
> nfsd: set PF_FSTRANS for nfsd threads.
> nfsd and VM: use PF_LESS_THROTTLE to avoid throttle in shrink_inactive_list.
> Set PF_FSTRANS while write_cache_pages calls ->writepage
> XFS: ensure xfs_file_*_read cannot deadlock in memory allocation.
> NET: set PF_FSTRANS while holding sk_lock
> FS: set PF_FSTRANS while holding mmap_sem in exec.c
> NET: set PF_FSTRANS while holding rtnl_lock
> MM: set PF_FSTRANS while allocating per-cpu memory to avoid deadlock.
> driver core: set PF_FSTRANS while holding gdp_mutex
> nfsd: set PF_FSTRANS when client_mutex is held.
> VFS: use GFP_NOFS rather than GFP_KERNEL in __d_alloc.
> VFS: set PF_FSTRANS while namespace_sem is held.
> nfsd: set PF_FSTRANS during nfsd4_do_callback_rpc.
> XFS: set PF_FSTRANS while ilock is held in xfs_free_eofblocks
>
>
> drivers/base/core.c | 3 ++
> drivers/base/power/runtime.c | 6 ++---
> drivers/block/nbd.c | 6 ++---
> drivers/md/dm-bufio.c | 6 ++---
> drivers/md/dm-ioctl.c | 6 ++---
> drivers/mtd/nand/nandsim.c | 28 ++++++---------------
> drivers/scsi/iscsi_tcp.c | 6 ++---
> drivers/usb/core/hub.c | 6 ++---
> fs/dcache.c | 4 ++-
> fs/exec.c | 6 +++++
> fs/fs-writeback.c | 5 ++--
> fs/namespace.c | 4 +++
> fs/nfs/file.c | 3 +-
> fs/nfsd/nfs4callback.c | 5 ++++
> fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c | 3 ++
> fs/nfsd/nfssvc.c | 24 ++++++++++++++----
> fs/nfsd/vfs.c | 6 +++++
> fs/xfs/kmem.h | 2 --
> fs/xfs/xfs_aops.c | 7 -----
> fs/xfs/xfs_bmap_util.c | 4 +++
> fs/xfs/xfs_file.c | 12 +++++++++
> fs/xfs/xfs_linux.h | 7 -----
> include/linux/lockdep.h | 8 +++---
> include/linux/sched.h | 32 +++++++++---------------
> include/linux/sunrpc/svc.h | 2 ++
> include/linux/sunrpc/svc_xprt.h | 1 +
> include/net/sock.h | 1 +
> kernel/locking/lockdep.c | 51 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> kernel/softirq.c | 6 ++---
> mm/migrate.c | 9 +++----
> mm/page-writeback.c | 3 ++
> mm/page_alloc.c | 18 ++++++++------
> mm/percpu.c | 4 +++
> mm/slab.c | 2 ++
> mm/slob.c | 2 ++
> mm/slub.c | 1 +
> mm/vmscan.c | 31 +++++++++++++++---------
> net/core/dev.c | 6 ++---
> net/core/rtnetlink.c | 9 ++++++-
> net/core/sock.c | 8 ++++--
> net/sunrpc/sched.c | 5 ++--
> net/sunrpc/svc.c | 6 +++++
> net/sunrpc/svcsock.c | 10 ++++++++
> net/sunrpc/xprtrdma/transport.c | 5 ++--
> net/sunrpc/xprtsock.c | 17 ++++++++-----
> 45 files changed, 247 insertions(+), 149 deletions(-)
>
--
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx. For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@xxxxxxxxx";> email@xxxxxxxxx </a>