On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 05:46:55PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 08:53:01PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 03:37:02PM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Mon, Dec 18, 2017 at 07:49:11PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 11:17:55AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 09:11:31AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > From: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > When we're remounting the filesystem readonly, remove all CoW
> > > > > > preallocations prior to going ro. If the fs goes down after the ro
> > > > > > remount, we never clean up the staging extents, which means xfs_check
> > > > > > will trip over them on a subsequent run. Practically speaking, the
> > > > > > next mount will clean them up too, so this is unlikely to be seen.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Found by adding clonerange to fsstress and running xfs/017.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Darrick J. Wong <darrick.wong@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 8 ++++++++
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > index f663022..7b6d150 100644
> > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > @@ -1369,6 +1369,14 @@ xfs_fs_remount(
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* rw -> ro */
> > > > > > if (!(mp->m_flags & XFS_MOUNT_RDONLY) && (*flags & MS_RDONLY)) {
> > > > > > + /* Get rid of any leftover CoW reservations... */
> > > > > > + cancel_delayed_work_sync(&mp->m_cowblocks_work);
> > > > > > + error = xfs_icache_free_cowblocks(mp, NULL);
> > > > > > + if (error) {
> > > > > > + xfs_force_shutdown(mp, SHUTDOWN_CORRUPT_INCORE);
> > > > > > + return error;
> > > > > > + }
> > > > >
> > > > > On rw->ro do we start the m_cowblocks_work back up?
> > > >
> > > > Assuming you meant to ask about ro->rw, then yes it should get started
> > > > back up the next time something sets the cowblocks tag. I'm not opposed
> > > > to starting it back up directly from the ro->rw handler.
> > > >
> > > > > What about when we freeze the filesystem - shouldn't we clean
> > > > > up the cow blocks there, too? We've tried hard in the past to make
> > > > > freeze and rw->ro exactly the same so that if the system is powered
> > > > > down while frozen it comes up almost entirely clean just like a
> > > > > ro-remount in shutdown....
> > > >
> > > > I don't see a hard requirement to clean them up at freeze time, though
> > > > we certainly can do it for consistency's sake.
> > >
> > > can't the background worker come around and attempt to do cleanup
> > > while the fs is frozen? We've had vectors like that in the past that
> > > have written to frozen filesystems (e.g. inode reclaim writing
> > > inodes, memory reclaim shrinkers triggering AIL pushes) so leaving
> > > potentially dirty objects in memory when the filesystem is frozen
> > > is kinda dangerous. That's the reason behind trying to make
> > > freeze/ro states identical - it makes sure we don't accidentally
> > > leave writable objects in memory when frozen...
> >
> > Hmmm, so /me tried making fsfreeze clear out the cow reservations, but
> > doing so requires allocating a transaction, which blows the assert in
> > sb_start_write because the fs is already frozen...
>
> Ah, didn't we solve that problem years ago? Ah, yeah,
> XFS_TRANS_NO_WRITECOUNT. That'd be a bit of a hack, but the
> problem here is we need to run this between freezing data writes and
> freezing transactions and we have no hook in the generic freeze
> code to do that...
>
> > I could just kill
> > the thread without cleaning out the cow reservations and let the
> > post-crash mount clean things up, since we already have the
> > infrastructure to do that anyway?
>
> Well, we do leave the log dirty on freeze so that we cleanup
> unlinked inodes if we crash while frozen, so there is precedence
> there. However, we need to balance that with the fairly common
> problem of having to run recovery on read-only snapshots on the
> first mount because a freeze leaves the log dirty. I don't
> think we want to make that problem worse so I'd like to avoid this
> solution if at all possible.
>
> > (Or create a ->freeze_super and do it there...)
>
> A ->freeze_data callout from the generic freezing code would be more
> appropriate than completely reimplementing our own freeze code.
> Right now the generic code just calls sync_filesystem(sb) to do this
> before setting SB_FREEZE_FS - we need to do more than just sync data
> if we are going to remove cow mappings on freeze....
<nod>
I was thinking of replacing the sync_filesystem() call in freeze_super
with:
if (sb->s_op->freeze_data) {
ret = sb->s_op->freeze_data(sb);
if (ret) {
printk(KERN_ERR
"VFS:Filesystem dta freeze failed\n");
sb->s_writers.frozen = SB_UNFROZEN;
sb_freeze_unlock(sb);
wake_up(&sb->s_writers.wait_unfrozen);
deactivate_locked_super(sb);
return ret;
}
} else {
sync_filesystem(sb);
}
Though at this point I feel that the freeze fix should be a totally
separate patch from the ro<->rw patch.
--D
> -Dave.
> --
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> --
> 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
