> On May 11, 2022, at 12:09 PM, Trond Myklebust <trondmy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2022-05-11 at 14:57 +0000, Chuck Lever III wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On May 10, 2022, at 10:24 AM, Chuck Lever III
>>> <chuck.lever@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On May 3, 2022, at 3:11 PM, dai.ngo@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I just noticed there were couple of oops in my Oracle6 in
>>>> nfs4.dev network.
>>>> I'm not sure who ran which tests (be useful to know) that caused
>>>> these oops.
>>>>
>>>> Here is the stack traces:
>>>>
>>>> [286123.154006] BUG: sleeping function called from invalid
>>>> context at kernel/locking/rwsem.c:1585
>>>> [286123.155126] in_atomic(): 1, irqs_disabled(): 0, non_block: 0,
>>>> pid: 3983, name: nfsd
>>>> [286123.155872] preempt_count: 1, expected: 0
>>>> [286123.156443] RCU nest depth: 0, expected: 0
>>>> [286123.156771] 1 lock held by nfsd/3983:
>>>> [286123.156786] #0: ffff888006762520 (&clp->cl_lock){+.+.}-
>>>> {2:2}, at: nfsd4_release_lockowner+0x306/0x850 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.156949] Preemption disabled at:
>>>> [286123.156961] [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
>>>> [286123.157520] CPU: 1 PID: 3983 Comm: nfsd Kdump: loaded Not
>>>> tainted 5.18.0-rc4+ #1
>>>> [286123.157539] Hardware name: innotek GmbH
>>>> VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
>>>> [286123.157552] Call Trace:
>>>> [286123.157565] <TASK>
>>>> [286123.157581] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
>>>> [286123.157609] __might_resched.cold+0x222/0x26b
>>>> [286123.157644] down_read_nested+0x68/0x420
>>>> [286123.157671] ? down_write_nested+0x130/0x130
>>>> [286123.157686] ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.157705] ? rcu_read_lock_sched_held+0x81/0xb0
>>>> [286123.157749] xfs_file_fsync+0x3b9/0x820
>>>> [286123.157776] ? lock_downgrade+0x680/0x680
>>>> [286123.157798] ? xfs_filemap_pfn_mkwrite+0x10/0x10
>>>> [286123.157823] ? nfsd_file_put+0x100/0x100 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.157921] nfsd_file_flush.isra.0+0x1b/0x220 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.158007] nfsd_file_put+0x79/0x100 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.158088] check_for_locks+0x152/0x200 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.158191] nfsd4_release_lockowner+0x4cf/0x850 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.158393] ? nfsd4_locku+0xd10/0xd10 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.158488] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.158525] nfsd4_proc_compound+0xd15/0x25a0 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.158699] nfsd_dispatch+0x4ed/0xc30 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.158974] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.159010] svc_process_common+0xd8e/0x1b20 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.159043] ? svc_generic_rpcbind_set+0x450/0x450 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.159043] ? nfsd_svc+0xc50/0xc50 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.159043] ? svc_sock_secure_port+0x27/0x40 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.159043] ? svc_recv+0x1100/0x2390 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.159043] svc_process+0x361/0x4f0 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.159043] nfsd+0x2d6/0x570 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.159043] ? nfsd_shutdown_threads+0x2a0/0x2a0 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.159043] kthread+0x29f/0x340
>>>> [286123.159043] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>>>> [286123.159043] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>>>> [286123.159043] </TASK>
>>>> [286123.187052] BUG: scheduling while atomic:
>>>> nfsd/3983/0x00000002
>>>> [286123.187551] INFO: lockdep is turned off.
>>>> [286123.187918] Modules linked in: nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl lockd
>>>> grace sunrpc
>>>> [286123.188527] Preemption disabled at:
>>>> [286123.188535] [<0000000000000000>] 0x0
>>>> [286123.189255] CPU: 1 PID: 3983 Comm: nfsd Kdump: loaded
>>>> Tainted: G W 5.18.0-rc4+ #1
>>>> [286123.190233] Hardware name: innotek GmbH
>>>> VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
>>>> [286123.190910] Call Trace:
>>>> [286123.190910] <TASK>
>>>> [286123.190910] dump_stack_lvl+0x57/0x7d
>>>> [286123.190910] __schedule_bug.cold+0x133/0x143
>>>> [286123.190910] __schedule+0x16c9/0x20a0
>>>> [286123.190910] ? schedule_timeout+0x314/0x510
>>>> [286123.190910] ? __sched_text_start+0x8/0x8
>>>> [286123.190910] ? internal_add_timer+0xa4/0xe0
>>>> [286123.190910] schedule+0xd7/0x1f0
>>>> [286123.190910] schedule_timeout+0x319/0x510
>>>> [286123.190910] ? rcu_read_lock_held_common+0xe/0xa0
>>>> [286123.190910] ? usleep_range_state+0x150/0x150
>>>> [286123.190910] ? lock_acquire+0x331/0x490
>>>> [286123.190910] ? init_timer_on_stack_key+0x50/0x50
>>>> [286123.190910] ? do_raw_spin_lock+0x116/0x260
>>>> [286123.190910] ? rwlock_bug.part.0+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.190910] io_schedule_timeout+0x26/0x80
>>>> [286123.190910] wait_for_completion_io_timeout+0x16a/0x340
>>>> [286123.190910] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.190910] ? wait_for_completion+0x330/0x330
>>>> [286123.190910] submit_bio_wait+0x135/0x1d0
>>>> [286123.190910] ? submit_bio_wait_endio+0x40/0x40
>>>> [286123.190910] ? xfs_iunlock+0xd5/0x300
>>>> [286123.190910] ? bio_init+0x295/0x470
>>>> [286123.190910] blkdev_issue_flush+0x69/0x80
>>>> [286123.190910] ? blk_unregister_queue+0x1e0/0x1e0
>>>> [286123.190910] ? bio_kmalloc+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.190910] ? xfs_iunlock+0x1b4/0x300
>>>> [286123.190910] xfs_file_fsync+0x354/0x820
>>>> [286123.190910] ? lock_downgrade+0x680/0x680
>>>> [286123.190910] ? xfs_filemap_pfn_mkwrite+0x10/0x10
>>>> [286123.190910] ? nfsd_file_put+0x100/0x100 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] nfsd_file_flush.isra.0+0x1b/0x220 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] nfsd_file_put+0x79/0x100 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] check_for_locks+0x152/0x200 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] nfsd4_release_lockowner+0x4cf/0x850 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? nfsd4_locku+0xd10/0xd10 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.190910] nfsd4_proc_compound+0xd15/0x25a0 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] nfsd_dispatch+0x4ed/0xc30 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? rcu_read_lock_bh_held+0x90/0x90
>>>> [286123.190910] svc_process_common+0xd8e/0x1b20 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? svc_generic_rpcbind_set+0x450/0x450 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? nfsd_svc+0xc50/0xc50 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? svc_sock_secure_port+0x27/0x40 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? svc_recv+0x1100/0x2390 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.190910] svc_process+0x361/0x4f0 [sunrpc]
>>>> [286123.190910] nfsd+0x2d6/0x570 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] ? nfsd_shutdown_threads+0x2a0/0x2a0 [nfsd]
>>>> [286123.190910] kthread+0x29f/0x340
>>>> [286123.190910] ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
>>>> [286123.190910] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>>>> [286123.190910] </TASK>
>>>>
>>>> The problem is the process tries to sleep while holding the
>>>> cl_lock by nfsd4_release_lockowner. I think the problem was
>>>> introduced with the filemap_flush in nfsd_file_put since
>>>> 'b6669305d35a nfsd: Reduce the number of calls to
>>>> nfsd_file_gc()'.
>>>> The filemap_flush is later replaced by nfsd_file_flush by
>>>> '6b8a94332ee4f nfsd: Fix a write performance regression'.
>>>
>>> That seems plausible, given the traces above.
>>>
>>> But it begs the question: why was a vfs_fsync() needed by
>>> RELEASE_LOCKOWNER in this case? I've tried to reproduce the
>>> problem, and even added a might_sleep() call in nfsd_file_flush()
>>> but haven't been able to reproduce.
>>
>> Trond, I'm assuming you switched to a synchronous flush here to
>> capture writeback errors. There's no other requirement for
>> waiting for the flush to complete, right?
>
> It's because the file is unhashed, so it is about to be closed and
> garbage collected as soon as the refcount goes to zero.
>
>>
>> To enable nfsd_file_put() to be invoked in atomic contexts again,
>> would the following be a reasonable short term fix:
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
>> index 2c1b027774d4..96c8d07788f4 100644
>> --- a/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
>> +++ b/fs/nfsd/filecache.c
>> @@ -304,7 +304,7 @@ nfsd_file_put(struct nfsd_file *nf)
>> {
>> set_bit(NFSD_FILE_REFERENCED, &nf->nf_flags);
>> if (test_bit(NFSD_FILE_HASHED, &nf->nf_flags) == 0) {
>> - nfsd_file_flush(nf);
>> + filemap_flush(nf->nf_file->f_mapping);
>> nfsd_file_put_noref(nf);
>> } else {
>> nfsd_file_put_noref(nf);
>>
>>
>
> filemap_flush() sleeps, and so does nfsd_file_put_noref() (it can call
> filp_close() + fput()), so this kind of change isn't going to work no
> matter how you massage it.
Er. Wouldn't that mean we would have seen "sleep while spinlock is
held" BUGs since nfsd4_release_lockowner() was added? It's done
at least an fput() while holding clp->cl_lock since it was added,
I think.
> Is there any reason why you need a reference to the nfs_file there?
> Wouldn't holding the fp->fi_lock be sufficient, since you're already in
> an atomic context? As long as one of the entries in fp->fi_fds[] is
> non-zero then you should be safe.
Sure, check_for_locks() seems to be the only problematic caller.
Other callers appear to be careful to call nfsd_file_put() only
after releasing spinlocks.
I would like a fix that can be backported without fuss. I was
thinking changing check_for_locks() might get a little too
hairy for that, but I'll check it out.
--
Chuck Lever
