On 2011-02-01 17:54, Fred Isaman wrote:
>
> On Feb 1, 2011, at 10:41 AM, Benny Halevy wrote:
>
>> I'm actually seeing that with the pnfs tree over 2.8.38-rc3
>> See signature below.
>> Will re-test with this patch.
>>
>
> In your retest, note that this patch depends on patch 1 of the series to work correctly.
Yeah, I noticed :-/
Benny
>
> Fred
>
>> Benny
>>
>> [ INFO: possible circular locking dependency detected ]
>> 2.6.38-rc3-pnfs-00391-g13858b7 #5
>> -------------------------------------------------------
>> test5/2174 is trying to acquire lock:
>> (&sb->s_type->i_lock_key#24){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa018e924>] nfs_inode_set_]
>>
>> but task is already holding lock:
>> (&(&clp->cl_lock)->rlock){+.+...}, at: [<ffffffffa018e822>] nfs_inode_set_del]
>>
>> which lock already depends on the new lock.
>>
>>
>> the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
>>
>> -> #1 (&(&clp->cl_lock)->rlock){+.+...}:
>> [<ffffffff8108281f>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x100
>> [<ffffffff8147df43>] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x69
>> [<ffffffffa0193b87>] pnfs_update_layout+0x2f5/0x4d9 [nfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0166862>] nfs_write_begin+0x90/0x257 [nfs]
>> [<ffffffff810e1d7b>] generic_file_buffered_write+0x106/0x267
>> [<ffffffff810e33a8>] __generic_file_aio_write+0x245/0x27a
>> [<ffffffff810e3439>] generic_file_aio_write+0x5c/0xaa
>> [<ffffffffa016728b>] nfs_file_write+0xdf/0x177 [nfs]
>> [<ffffffff8112b599>] do_sync_write+0xcb/0x108
>> [<ffffffff8112bf97>] vfs_write+0xb1/0x10d
>> [<ffffffff8112c0bc>] sys_write+0x4d/0x77
>> [<ffffffff8100ab82>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>>
>> -> #0 (&sb->s_type->i_lock_key#24){+.+...}:
>> [<ffffffff81082457>] __lock_acquire+0xa45/0xd3a
>> [<ffffffff8108281f>] lock_acquire+0xd3/0x100
>> [<ffffffff8147df43>] _raw_spin_lock+0x36/0x69
>> [<ffffffffa018e924>] nfs_inode_set_delegation+0x1f4/0x250 [nfs]
>> [<ffffffffa017cb9b>] nfs4_opendata_to_nfs4_state+0x26c/0x2c9 [nfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0181827>] nfs4_do_open+0x364/0x37c [nfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0181867>] nfs4_atomic_open+0x28/0x45 [nfs]
>> [<ffffffffa0165edc>] nfs_open_revalidate+0xf8/0x1a1 [nfs]
>> [<ffffffff81135111>] d_revalidate+0x21/0x56
>> [<ffffffff811351ca>] do_revalidate+0x1d/0x7a
>> [<ffffffff811353eb>] do_lookup+0x1c4/0x1f8
>> [<ffffffff81137406>] link_path_walk+0x260/0x485
>> [<ffffffff8113786a>] do_path_lookup+0x50/0x10d
>> [<ffffffff81138658>] do_filp_open+0x137/0x65e
>> [<ffffffff81129e6e>] do_sys_open+0x60/0xf2
>> [<ffffffff81129f33>] sys_open+0x20/0x22
>> [<ffffffff8100ab82>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>>
>>
>> On 2011-01-31 17:27, Fred Isaman wrote:
>>> The pnfs code was using throughout the lock order i_lock, cl_lock.
>>> This conflicts with the nfs delegation code. Rework the pnfs code
>>> to avoid taking both locks simultaneously.
>>>
>>> Currently the code takes the double lock to add/remove the layout to a
>>> nfs_client list, while atomically checking that the list of lsegs is
>>> empty. To avoid this, we rely on existing serializations. When a
>>> layout is initialized with lseg count equal zero, LAYOUTGET's
>>> openstateid serialization is in effect, making it safe to assume it
>>> stays zero unless we change it. And once a layout's lseg count drops
>>> to zero, it is set as DESTROYED and so will stay at zero.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Fred Isaman <iisaman@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> fs/nfs/callback_proc.c | 2 +-
>>> fs/nfs/pnfs.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------
>>> 2 files changed, 30 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c b/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c
>>> index 8958757..2f41dcce 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/callback_proc.c
>>> @@ -188,10 +188,10 @@ static u32 initiate_bulk_draining(struct nfs_client *clp,
>>> rv = NFS4ERR_DELAY;
>>> list_del_init(&lo->plh_bulk_recall);
>>> spin_unlock(&ino->i_lock);
>>> + pnfs_free_lseg_list(&free_me_list);
>>> put_layout_hdr(lo);
>>> iput(ino);
>>> }
>>> - pnfs_free_lseg_list(&free_me_list);
>>> return rv;
>>> }
>>>
>>> diff --git a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> index f89c3bb..ee6c69a 100644
>>> --- a/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> +++ b/fs/nfs/pnfs.c
>>> @@ -247,13 +247,6 @@ put_lseg_locked(struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg,
>>> BUG_ON(test_bit(NFS_LSEG_VALID, &lseg->pls_flags));
>>> list_del(&lseg->pls_list);
>>> if (list_empty(&lseg->pls_layout->plh_segs)) {
>>> - struct nfs_client *clp;
>>> -
>>> - clp = NFS_SERVER(ino)->nfs_client;
>>> - spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> - /* List does not take a reference, so no need for put here */
>>> - list_del_init(&lseg->pls_layout->plh_layouts);
>>> - spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> set_bit(NFS_LAYOUT_DESTROYED, &lseg->pls_layout->plh_flags);
>>> /* Matched by initial refcount set in alloc_init_layout_hdr */
>>> put_layout_hdr_locked(lseg->pls_layout);
>>> @@ -319,14 +312,30 @@ mark_matching_lsegs_invalid(struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo,
>>> return invalid - removed;
>>> }
>>>
>>> +/* note free_me must contain lsegs from a single layout_hdr */
>>> void
>>> pnfs_free_lseg_list(struct list_head *free_me)
>>> {
>>> - struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg, *tmp;
>>> + if (!list_empty(free_me)) {
>>> + struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg, *tmp;
>>> + struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo;
>>>
>>> - list_for_each_entry_safe(lseg, tmp, free_me, pls_list) {
>>> - list_del(&lseg->pls_list);
>>> - free_lseg(lseg);
>>> + lo = list_first_entry(free_me,
>>> + struct pnfs_layout_segment,
>>> + pls_list)->pls_layout;
>>> +
>>> + if (test_bit(NFS_LAYOUT_DESTROYED, &lo->plh_flags)) {
>>> + struct nfs_client *clp;
>>> +
>>> + clp = NFS_SERVER(lo->plh_inode)->nfs_client;
>>> + spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> + list_del_init(&lo->plh_layouts);
>>> + spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> + }
>>> + list_for_each_entry_safe(lseg, tmp, free_me, pls_list) {
>>> + list_del(&lseg->pls_list);
>>> + free_lseg(lseg);
>>> + }
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> @@ -704,6 +713,7 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
>>> struct nfs_client *clp = NFS_SERVER(ino)->nfs_client;
>>> struct pnfs_layout_hdr *lo;
>>> struct pnfs_layout_segment *lseg = NULL;
>>> + bool first = false;
>>>
>>> if (!pnfs_enabled_sb(NFS_SERVER(ino)))
>>> return NULL;
>>> @@ -734,7 +744,10 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
>>> atomic_inc(&lo->plh_outstanding);
>>>
>>> get_layout_hdr(lo);
>>> - if (list_empty(&lo->plh_segs)) {
>>> + if (list_empty(&lo->plh_segs))
>>> + first = true;
>>> + spin_unlock(&ino->i_lock);
>>> + if (first) {
>>> /* The lo must be on the clp list if there is any
>>> * chance of a CB_LAYOUTRECALL(FILE) coming in.
>>> */
>>> @@ -743,17 +756,12 @@ pnfs_update_layout(struct inode *ino,
>>> list_add_tail(&lo->plh_layouts, &clp->cl_layouts);
>>> spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> }
>>> - spin_unlock(&ino->i_lock);
>>>
>>> lseg = send_layoutget(lo, ctx, iomode);
>>> - if (!lseg) {
>>> - spin_lock(&ino->i_lock);
>>> - if (list_empty(&lo->plh_segs)) {
>>> - spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> - list_del_init(&lo->plh_layouts);
>>> - spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> - }
>>> - spin_unlock(&ino->i_lock);
>>> + if (!lseg && first) {
>>> + spin_lock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> + list_del_init(&lo->plh_layouts);
>>> + spin_unlock(&clp->cl_lock);
>>> }
>>> atomic_dec(&lo->plh_outstanding);
>>> put_layout_hdr(lo);
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-nfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
