Message-Id: <200905181410.n4IEAHcW017360@demeter.kernel.org>
Date:	Mon, 18 May 2009 14:10:17 GMT
From:	bugzilla-daemon@...zilla.kernel.org
To:	linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [Bug 13232] ext3/4 with synchronous writes gets wedged by Postfix

http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13232





--- Comment #11 from Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>  2009-05-18 14:10:15 ---
On Wed 13-05-09 19:13:40, Al Viro wrote:
> On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 05:52:54PM +0100, Al Viro wrote:
> > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 03:48:02PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > >   Here, we have started a transaction in ext3_create() and then wait in
> > > > find_inode_fast() for I_FREEING to be cleared (obviously we have
> > > > reallocated the inode and squeezed the allocation before journal_stop()
> > > > from the delete was called).
> > > >   Nasty deadlock and I don't see how to fix it now - have to go home for
> > > > today... Tomorrow I'll have a look what we can do about it.
> > >   OK, the deadlock has been introduced by ext3 variant of
> > > 261bca86ed4f7f391d1938167624e78da61dcc6b (adding Al to CC). The deadlock
> > > is really tough to avoid - we have to first allocate inode on disk so
> > > that we know the inode number. For this we need transaction open but we
> > > cannot afford waiting for old inode with same INO to be freed when we have
> > > transaction open because of the above deadlock. So we'd have to wait for
> > > inode release only after everything is done and we closed the transaction. But
> > > that would mean reordering a lot of code in ext3/namei.c so that all the
> > > dcache handling is done after all the IO is done.
> > >   Hmm, maybe we could change the delete side of the deadlock but that's
> > > going to be tricky as well :(.
> > >   Al, any idea if we could somehow get away without waiting on
> > > I_FREEING?
> > 
> > At which point do we actually run into deadlock on delete side?  We could,
> > in principle, skip everything like that in insert_inode_locked(), but
> > I would rather avoid the "two inodes in icache at the same time, with the
> > same inumber" situations completely.  We might get away with that, since
> > everything else *will* wait, so we can afford a bunch of inodes past the
> > point in foo_delete_inode() that has cleared it in bitmap + new locked
> > one, but if it's at all possible to avoid, I'd rather avoid it.
> 
> OK, that's probably the easiest way to do that, as much as I don't like it...
> Since iget() et.al. will not accept I_FREEING (will wait to go away
> and restart), and since we'd better have serialization between new/free
> on fs data structures anyway, we can afford simply skipping I_FREEING
> et.al. in insert_inode_locked().
> 
> We do that from new_inode, so it won't race with free_inode in any interesting
> ways and it won't race with iget (of any origin; nfsd or in case of fs
> corruption a lookup) since both still will wait for I_LOCK.
> 
> Tentative patch follow; folks, I would very much like review on that one,
> since I'm far too low on caffeine and the area is nasty.
  The patch looks fine. Everyone else will either get new inode and wait
for I_LOCK or get old inode and wait for I_FREEING so everything should be
fine... You can add.
  Acked-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>

                                    Honza
> 
> diff --git a/fs/inode.c b/fs/inode.c
> index 9d26490..4406952 100644
> --- a/fs/inode.c
> +++ b/fs/inode.c
> @@ -1053,13 +1053,22 @@ int insert_inode_locked(struct inode *inode)
>  	struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
>  	ino_t ino = inode->i_ino;
>  	struct hlist_head *head = inode_hashtable + hash(sb, ino);
> -	struct inode *old;
>  
>  	inode->i_state |= I_LOCK|I_NEW;
>  	while (1) {
> +		struct hlist_node *node;
> +		struct inode *old = NULL;
>  		spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> -		old = find_inode_fast(sb, head, ino);
> -		if (likely(!old)) {
> +		hlist_for_each_entry(old, node, head, i_hash) {
> +			if (old->i_ino != ino)
> +				continue;
> +			if (old->i_sb != sb)
> +				continue;
> +			if (old->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_CLEAR|I_WILL_FREE))
> +				continue;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		if (likely(!node)) {
>  			hlist_add_head(&inode->i_hash, head);
>  			spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
>  			return 0;
> @@ -1081,14 +1090,24 @@ int insert_inode_locked4(struct inode *inode, unsigned long hashval,
>  {
>  	struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
>  	struct hlist_head *head = inode_hashtable + hash(sb, hashval);
> -	struct inode *old;
>  
>  	inode->i_state |= I_LOCK|I_NEW;
>  
>  	while (1) {
> +		struct hlist_node *node;
> +		struct inode *old = NULL;
> +
>  		spin_lock(&inode_lock);
> -		old = find_inode(sb, head, test, data);
> -		if (likely(!old)) {
> +		hlist_for_each_entry(old, node, head, i_hash) {
> +			if (old->i_sb != sb)
> +				continue;
> +			if (!test(old, data))
> +				continue;
> +			if (old->i_state & (I_FREEING|I_CLEAR|I_WILL_FREE))
> +				continue;
> +			break;
> +		}
> +		if (likely(!node)) {
>  			hlist_add_head(&inode->i_hash, head);
>  			spin_unlock(&inode_lock);
>  			return 0;

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.kernel.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are watching the assignee of the bug.--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists