On Fri, May 12, 2017 at 10:21:35AM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 01:08:05PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, May 11, 2017 at 03:57:33PM +0200, Carlos Maiolino wrote:
> > > When a buffer has been failed during writeback, the inode items into it
> > > are kept flush locked, and are never resubmitted due the flush lock, so,
> > > if any buffer fails to be written, the items in AIL are never written to
> > > disk and never unlocked.
> > >
> > > This causes a filesystem to be unmountable due these items flush locked
> > > in AIL, but this also causes the items in AIL to never be written back,
> > > even when the IO device comes back to normal.
> > >
> > > I've been testing this patch with a DM-thin device, creating a
> > > filesystem larger than the real device.
> > >
> > > When writing enough data to fill the DM-thin device, XFS receives ENOSPC
> > > errors from the device, and keep spinning on xfsaild (when 'retry
> > > forever' configuration is set).
> > >
> > > At this point, the filesystem is unmountable because of the flush locked
> > > items in AIL, but worse, the items in AIL are never retried at all
> > > (once xfs_inode_item_push() will skip the items that are flush locked),
> > > even if the underlying DM-thin device is expanded to the proper size.
> > >
> > > This patch fixes both cases, retrying any item that has been failed
> > > previously, using the infra-structure provided by the previous patch.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolino@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > This same problem is also possible in dquot code, but the fix is almost
> > > identical.
> > >
> > > I am not submitting a fix for dquot yet to avoid the need to create VX for both
> > > patches, once we agree with the solution, I'll submit a fix to dquot.
> > >
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c | 54 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> > > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
> > > index 08cb7d1..583fa9e 100644
> > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
> > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_inode_item.c
> > > @@ -475,6 +475,21 @@ xfs_inode_item_unpin(
> > > wake_up_bit(&ip->i_flags, __XFS_IPINNED_BIT);
> > > }
> > >
> > > +STATIC void
> > > +xfs_inode_item_error(
> > > + struct xfs_log_item *lip,
> > > + unsigned int bflags)
> > > +{
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * The buffer writeback containing this inode has been failed
> > > + * mark it as failed and unlock the flush lock, so it can be retried
> > > + * again
> > > + */
> > > + if (bflags & XBF_WRITE_FAIL)
> > > + lip->li_flags |= XFS_LI_FAILED;
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > STATIC uint
> > > xfs_inode_item_push(
> > > struct xfs_log_item *lip,
> > > @@ -517,8 +532,44 @@ xfs_inode_item_push(
> > > * the AIL.
> > > */
> > > if (!xfs_iflock_nowait(ip)) {
> > > + if (lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED) {
> > > +
> > > + struct xfs_dinode *dip;
> > > + struct xfs_log_item *next;
> > > + int error;
> > > +
> > > + error = xfs_imap_to_bp(ip->i_mount, NULL, &ip->i_imap,
> > > + &dip, &bp, XBF_TRYLOCK, 0);
> > > +
> > > + if (error) {
> > > + rval = XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING;
> > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + if (!(bp->b_flags & XBF_WRITE_FAIL)) {
> > > + rval = XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING;
> > > + xfs_buf_relse(bp);
> > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > + }
I think I glossed over this on my first pass, but I don't think we need
to (or should) check XBF_WRITE_FAIL here or in the error handler. It's a
flag used to control the internal retry and that is kind of irrelevant
to this mechanism. Unless I'm missing something.. I don't think this
state can occur..?
Brian
> > > +
> > > + while (lip != NULL) {
> > > + next = lip->li_bio_list;
> > > +
> > > + if (lip->li_flags & XFS_LI_FAILED)
> > > + lip->li_flags &= XFS_LI_FAILED;
> >
> > Eric already pointed out that you probably intend to clear the flag
> > here..?
> >
>
> Yup, my bad.
>
> > > + lip = next;
> > > + }
> >
> > This whole hunk might be better off in a helper function (with the
> > comment Eric suggested as well).
> >
>
> Agreed, a helper function can be used here and in dquot code as well, so I agree
> that a helper function can be useful, I'll try to make it a common code for both
> dquot and inode items.
>
> > Those points and the ->iop_error() thing aside, this otherwise seems Ok
> > to me.
> >
>
>
> > Brian
> >
> > > +
> > > + if (!xfs_buf_delwri_queue(bp, buffer_list))
> > > + rval = XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING;
> > > +
> > > + xfs_buf_relse(bp);
> > > + goto out_unlock;
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > rval = XFS_ITEM_FLUSHING;
> > > goto out_unlock;
> > > +
> > > }
> > >
> > > ASSERT(iip->ili_fields != 0 || XFS_FORCED_SHUTDOWN(ip->i_mount));
> > > @@ -622,7 +673,8 @@ static const struct xfs_item_ops xfs_inode_item_ops = {
> > > .iop_unlock = xfs_inode_item_unlock,
> > > .iop_committed = xfs_inode_item_committed,
> > > .iop_push = xfs_inode_item_push,
> > > - .iop_committing = xfs_inode_item_committing
> > > + .iop_committing = xfs_inode_item_committing,
> > > + .iop_error = xfs_inode_item_error
> > > };
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > 2.9.3
> > >
> > > --
> > > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > --
> > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> > the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
> --
> Carlos
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
