On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 08:37:13AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 01:30:43PM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 02:45:10PM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 09:35:35AM -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 14, 2022 at 09:38:10AM +1100, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > > On Thu, Jan 13, 2022 at 08:37:01AM -0500, Brian Foster wrote:
> > > > > > We've had reports on distro (pre-deferred inactivation) kernels that
> > > > > > inode reclaim (i.e. via drop_caches) can deadlock on the s_umount
> > > > > > lock when invoked on a frozen XFS fs. This occurs because
> > > > > > drop_caches acquires the lock and then blocks in xfs_inactive() on
> > > > > > transaction alloc for an inode that requires an eofb trim. unfreeze
> > > > > > then blocks on the same lock and the fs is deadlocked.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > With deferred inactivation, the deadlock problem is no longer
> > > > > > present because ->destroy_inode() no longer blocks whether the fs is
> > > > > > frozen or not. There is still unfortunate behavior in that lookups
> > > > > > of a pending inactive inode spin loop waiting for the pending
> > > > > > inactive state to clear, which won't happen until the fs is
> > > > > > unfrozen. This was always possible to some degree, but is
> > > > > > potentially amplified by the fact that reclaim no longer blocks on
> > > > > > the first inode that requires inactivation work. Instead, we
> > > > > > populate the inactivation queues indefinitely. The side effect can
> > > > > > be observed easily by invoking drop_caches on a frozen fs previously
> > > > > > populated with eofb and/or cowblocks inodes and then running
> > > > > > anything that relies on inode lookup (i.e., ls).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To mitigate this behavior, invoke internal blockgc reclaim during
> > > > > > the freeze sequence to guarantee that inode eviction doesn't lead to
> > > > > > this state due to eofb or cowblocks inodes. This is similar to
> > > > > > current behavior on read-only remount. Since the deadlock issue was
> > > > > > present for such a long time, also document the subtle
> > > > > > ->destroy_inode() constraint to avoid unintentional reintroduction
> > > > > > of the deadlock problem in the future.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > > fs/xfs/xfs_super.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++--
> > > > > > 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > index c7ac486ca5d3..1d0f87e47fa4 100644
> > > > > > --- a/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > +++ b/fs/xfs/xfs_super.c
> > > > > > @@ -623,8 +623,13 @@ xfs_fs_alloc_inode(
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /*
> > > > > > - * Now that the generic code is guaranteed not to be accessing
> > > > > > - * the linux inode, we can inactivate and reclaim the inode.
> > > > > > + * Now that the generic code is guaranteed not to be accessing the inode, we can
> > > > > > + * inactivate and reclaim it.
> > > > > > + *
> > > > > > + * NOTE: ->destroy_inode() can be called (with ->s_umount held) while the
> > > > > > + * filesystem is frozen. Therefore it is generally unsafe to attempt transaction
> > > > > > + * allocation in this context. A transaction alloc that blocks on frozen state
> > > > > > + * from a context with ->s_umount held will deadlock with unfreeze.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > STATIC void
> > > > > > xfs_fs_destroy_inode(
> > > > > > @@ -764,6 +769,16 @@ xfs_fs_sync_fs(
> > > > > > * when the state is either SB_FREEZE_FS or SB_FREEZE_COMPLETE.
> > > > > > */
> > > > > > if (sb->s_writers.frozen == SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT) {
> > > > > > + struct xfs_icwalk icw = {0};
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > + /*
> > > > > > + * Clear out eofb and cowblocks inodes so eviction while frozen
> > > > > > + * doesn't leave them sitting in the inactivation queue where
> > > > > > + * they cannot be processed.
> > > > > > + */
> > > > > > + icw.icw_flags = XFS_ICWALK_FLAG_SYNC;
> > > > > > + xfs_blockgc_free_space(mp, &icw);
> > > > >
> > > > > Is a SYNC walk safe to run here? I know we run
> > > > > xfs_blockgc_free_space() from XFS_IOC_FREE_EOFBLOCKS under
> > > > > SB_FREEZE_WRITE protection, but here we have both frozen writes and
> > > > > page faults we're running in a much more constrained freeze context
> > > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > i.e. the SYNC walk will keep busy looping if it can't get the
> > > > > IOLOCK_EXCL on an inode that is in cache, so if we end up with an
> > > > > inode locked and blocked on SB_FREEZE_WRITE or SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT
> > > > > for whatever reason this will never return....
> > > >
> > > > Are you referring to the case where one could be read()ing from a file
> > > > into a buffer that's really a mmap'd page from another file while the
> > > > underlying fs is being frozen?
> > > >
> > >
> > > I thought this was generally safe as freeze protection sits outside of
> > > the locks, but I'm not terribly sure about the read to a mapped buffer
> > > case. If that allows an iolock holder to block on a pagefault due to
> > > freeze, then SB_FREEZE_PAGEFAULT might be too late for a synchronous
> > > scan (i.e. assuming nothing blocks this earlier or prefaults/pins the
> > > target buffer)..?
> >
> > I think so. xfs_file_buffered_read takes IOLOCK_SHARED and calls
> > filemap_read, which calls copy_page_to_iter. I /think/ the messy iovec
> > code calls copyout, which can then hit a write page fault, which takes
> > us to __xfs_filemap_fault. That takes SB_PAGEFAULT, which is the
> > opposite order of what now goes on during a freeze.
> >
> > > > Also, I added this second patch and fstests runtime went up by 30%.
> > > > ISTR Dave commenting that freeze time would go way up when I submitted a
> > > > patch to clean out the cow blocks a few years ago.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Do you have any more detailed data on this? I.e., is this an increase
> > > across the board? A smaller set of tests doing many freezes with a
> > > significant runtime increase?
> >
> > I think it's constrained to tests that run freeze and thaw in a loop,
> > but the increases in those tests are large.
> >
> > Here's what I see when I run all the tests that mention 'freeze' before
> > applying the patch:
> >
> > generic/068 46s
> > generic/085 9s
> > generic/280 2s
> > generic/311 53s
> > generic/390 3s
> > generic/459 15s
> > generic/491 2s
> > xfs/006 8s
> > xfs/011 20s
> > xfs/119 6s
> > xfs/264 13s
> > xfs/297 42s
> > xfs/318 2s
> > xfs/325 2s
> > xfs/438 4s
> > xfs/517 46s
> >
> > And here's after:
> >
> > generic/068 47s
> > generic/085 17s
> > generic/280 4s
> > generic/311 81s
> > generic/390 4s
> > generic/459 14s
> > generic/491 2s
> > xfs/006 9s
> > xfs/011 21s
> > xfs/119 11s
> > xfs/264 18s
> > xfs/297 31s
> > xfs/318 3s
> > xfs/325 2s
> > xfs/438 5s
> > xfs/517 46s
> >
> > Most of those tests run in more or less the same amount of time, except
> > for generic/085, generic/311, xfs/119, xfs/264, and xfs/297. Of those,
> > they all freeze repeatedly except for xfs/119.
> >
> > I would imagine that the same thing is going on with tests that touch
> > device-mapper, since a dm suspend also freezes the fs, but I didn't
> > check those tests all that thoroughly, since most of the dmerror /
> > dmflakey tests only switch the dm table once or twice per test.
> >
>
> I think the test performance is more likely to impacted when there's a
> combination of freeze and some workload that results in the blockgc scan
> having to do work. Of course there will be some impact even with the
> extra call, but that and your followup results that factor out lockdep
> seem a much more reasonable impact to me.
>
> The way I see it, we can always optimize looping tests that become too
> slow and it's not exactly like tests are designed for runtime efficiency
> in the first place. I feel like I run into new tests all the time that
> don't really consider the broader runtime impact and whether they do
> more work than really necessary. Unless there's some
> immediate/unforeseen/disruptive change (like your initial numbers seemed
> to suggest), this doesn't seem like a primary concern to me.
>
> > > I'm a little on the fence about this because personally, I'm not
> > > terribly concerned about the performance of a single freeze call. At the
> > > same time, I could see this adding up across hundreds of cycles or
> > > whatever via a test or test suite, and that being potentially annoying
> > > to devs/testers.
> >
> > Well... yeah. The net effect on djwong-dev is that a -g all test run
> > went from 3.6h to 4.8h. It was less bad for tip (2.8 to 3h).
> >
> > > > Also also looking through the archives[1], Brian once commented that
> > > > cleaning up all this stuff should be done /if/ one decides to mount the
> > > > frozen-snapshot writable at some later point in time.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That kind of sounds like the tradeoff of impacting the current/active fs
> > > for the benefit of a snapshot that may or may not be used. If not, then
> > > it's a waste of time. If so, it might be beneficial for the snap to more
> > > accurately reflect the "eventual" state of the original. For cowblocks
> > > perhaps it doesn't matter if the mount/recovery will scan and reclaim.
> > > I'm not as sure for eofblocks, wouldn't the snap persist all that
> > > "intended to be transient" speculative prealloc until/unless said files
> > > are reopened/closed?
> >
> > Yes, that is the current behavior. :)
> >
> > I don't know if it's really optimal (it's at least lazy :P) and Eric has
> > tried to shift the balance away from "xfs snapshots take forever to
> > mount".
> >
> > > > Maybe this means we ought to find a way to remove inodes from the percpu
> > > > inactivation lists? iget used to be able to pry inodes out of deferred
> > > > inactivation...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Seems a reasonable option. Presumably that mitigates the lookup stalling
> > > behavior without the need for any additional scanning work at freeze
> > > time (and maybe eliminates the need for an inodegc flush too), but is
> > > neutral wrt some of the other tradeoffs (like the above). I think the
> > > former is the big question wrt to deferred inactivation whereas the
> > > latter has been the case forever.
> > >
> > > BTW, should we care at all about somebody dropping the entire cached
> > > working set (worst case) onto these queues if the fs is frozen? Maybe
> > > not if we have to cycle through all these inodes anyways for a full
> > > working set eviction, and presumably a large evictor task (i.e.
> > > drop_caches) will minimize the percpu queue distribution...
> >
> > I've wondered myself if we really need to dump quite so many inodes onto
> > the inactivation queue while we're frozen. For posteof blocks we could
> > just leave them attached and hope that inactivation eventually gets
> > them, though that has the unfortunate side effect that space can
> > disappear into the depths.
> >
>
> I would really prefer to avoid any sort of approach that leaks post-eof
> space as such. As unlikely as this situation might be, that reintroduces
> paths to the old "where'd my XFS space go?" class of problems this
> infrastructure was originally designed to address.
>
> ISTM the currently most viable options we've discussed are:
>
> 1. Leave things as is, accept potential for lookup stalls while frozen
> and wait and see if this ever really becomes a problem for real users.
>From a laziness perspective, I like this option. :)
But we /do/ have customers who file escalations for every stack trace
they see in dmesg, even if it's merely the hangcheck timer telling them
that a process has stalled on a frozen fs.
> 2. Tweak the scan to be async as Dave suggested in his followup mail.
> This changes this patch from a guarantee to more of a mitigation, which
> personally I think is fairly reasonable. We'd still have drained writers
> and faulters by this point in the freeze, so the impact would probably
> be limited to contention with readers of blockgc inodes (though this
> probably should be tested).
<nod> Switching to an async scan would ameliorate the situation, but not
solve it.
> 3. Darrick's earlier thought to reintroduce inode reuse off the
> inactivation queues. It's not clear to me how involved this might be.
I /think/ it's fairly simple to teach xfs_iget to xfs_iget_recycle and
clear NEEDS_INACTIVE from the inode and the inodegc worker to re-check
if an inode is NEEDS_INACTIVE before setting INACTIVATING.
A bigger problem might be how to prevent the inode from being reclaimed
until the i_gclist is clear /and/ we know the worker is done with it.
> 4-N. I'm sure we can think up any number of other theoretical options
> depending on how involved we want to get. The idea below sounds
> plausible, but at the same time (and if I'm following correctly)
> inventing a new way to free space off inodes purely for the use of
> eviction during freeze sounds excessive wrt to complexity, future
> maintenance burden, etc.
Yeah.
> Perhaps yet another option could be something like a more granular
> freeze callback that, if specified by the fs, invokes the filesystem at
> each step of the freeze sequence instead of only at the end like
> ->freeze_fs() currently does. IIUC this problem mostly goes away if we
> can run the scan a bit earlier, we could clean up the existing freeze
> wart in ->sync_fs(), and perhaps other filesystems might find that
> similarly useful. Of course this requires more changes outside of xfs..
<nod> I wish we could lock out file reads during whole-fs transitions
like freezing and ro remounts, but I bet the community would not be
amenable to adding mnt_want_read type things to all the vfs functions.
--D
>
> Brian
>
> > COW mappings are attached incore to the inode cow fork but the refcount
> > btree ondisk, so in principle for frozen inodes we could move the cow
> > mappings to an internal bitmap, let the inode go, and free the abandoned
> > cow blocks at thaw time.
> >
> > Unlinked inodes with no active refcount can of course block in the queue
> > forever; userspace can't have those back.
> >
> > --D
> >
> > >
> > > Brian
> > >
> > > > [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-xfs/20190117181406.GF37591@bfoster/
> > > >
> > > > --D
> > > >
> > > > > Cheers,
> > > > >
> > > > > Dave.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Dave Chinner
> > > > > david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
