On 2022/4/13 04:41, David Sterba wrote:
On Tue, Apr 12, 2022 at 08:30:13PM +0800, Qu Wenruo wrote:
[BUG]
When running generic/475 with 64K page size and 4K sector size, it has a
very high chance (almost 100%) to hang, with mostly data page locked but
no one is going to unlock it.
[CAUSE]
With commit 1784b7d502a9 ("btrfs: handle csum lookup errors properly on
reads"), if we failed to lookup checksum due to metadata IO error, we
will return error for btrfs_submit_data_bio().
This will cause the page to be unlocked twice in btrfs_do_readpage():
btrfs_do_readpage()
|- submit_extent_page()
| |- submit_one_bio()
| |- btrfs_submit_data_bio()
| |- if (ret) {
| |- bio->bi_status = ret;
| |- bio_endio(bio); }
| In the endio function, we will call end_page_read()
| and unlock_extent() to cleanup the subpage range.
|
|- if (ret) {
|- unlock_extent(); end_page_read() }
Here we unlock the extent and cleanup the subpage range
again.
For unlock_extent(), it's mostly double unlock safe.
But for end_page_read(), it's not, especially for subpage case,
as for subpage case we will call btrfs_subpage_end_reader() to reduce
the reader number, and use that to number to determine if we need to
unlock the full page.
If double accounted, it can underflow the number and leave the page
locked without anyone to unlock it.
[FIX]
The commit 1784b7d502a9 ("btrfs: handle csum lookup errors properly on
reads") itself is completely fine, it's our existing code not properly
handling the error from bio submission hook properly.
This patch will make submit_one_bio() to return void so that the callers
will never be able to do cleanup when bio submission hook fails.
CC: stable@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx # 5.18+
BTW stable tags are only for released kernels, if it's still in some rc
then Fixes: is appropriate.
The problem is I don't have a good idea on which commit to be fixed.
Commit 1784b7d502a9 ("btrfs: handle csum lookup errors properly on
reads") is completely fine by itself.
The problem is there for a long long time, but can only be triggered
with IO errors with that newer commit.
Should we really use that commit? It looks like a scapegoat to me...
Thanks,
Qu
