linux-ext4 - Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] jbd2: Fix I/O hang in jbd2_journal_release_jbd

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <20100827191025.GV4453@thunk.org>
Date:	Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:10:25 -0400
From:	Ted Ts'o <tytso@....edu>
To:	Brian King <brking@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	Josef Bacik <josef@...hat.com>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
	cmm@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, pmac@....ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCHv2 1/1] jbd2: Fix I/O hang in
 jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 01:58:46PM -0500, Brian King wrote:
> 
> I've been debugging a hang in jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode
> which is being seen on Power 6 systems quite a lot. When we get
> in the hung state, all I/O to the disk in question gets blocked
> where we stay indefinitely. Looking at the task list, I can see
> we are stuck in jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode waiting on a
> wake up. I added some debug code to detect this scenario and
> dump additional data if we were stuck in jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode
> for longer than 30 minutes. When it hit, I was able to see that
> i_flags was 0, suggesting we missed the wake up.
> 
> This patch changes i_flags to be an unsigned long, uses bit operators
> to access it, and adds barriers around the accesses. Prior to applying
> this patch, we were regularly hitting this hang on numerous systems
> in our test environment. After applying the patch, the hangs no longer
> occur. Its still not clear to me why the j_list_lock doesn't protect us
> in this path. It also appears a hang very similar to this was seen
> in the past and then was no longer recreatable:

I've been look at this patch, and I can see how converting to bitops
definitely makes sense.  I can also see how adding
smp_mb__after_clear_bit() makes sense.  However, it's not clear the
smp_mb() call here helps?

> diff -puN fs/jbd2/journal.c~jbd2_ji_commit_barrier_patch fs/jbd2/journal.c
> --- linux-2.6/fs/jbd2/journal.c~jbd2_ji_commit_barrier_patch	2010-07-14 13:46:17.000000000 -0500
> +++ linux-2.6-bjking1/fs/jbd2/journal.c	2010-07-14 13:46:17.000000000 -0500
> @@ -2209,9 +2211,10 @@ void jbd2_journal_release_jbd_inode(jour
>  restart:
>  	spin_lock(&journal->j_list_lock);
>  	/* Is commit writing out inode - we have to wait */
> -	if (jinode->i_flags & JI_COMMIT_RUNNING) {
> +	if (test_bit(__JI_COMMIT_RUNNING, &jinode->i_flags)) {
>  		wait_queue_head_t *wq;
>  		DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &jinode->i_flags, __JI_COMMIT_RUNNING);
> +		smp_mb();
>  		wq = bit_waitqueue(&jinode->i_flags, __JI_COMMIT_RUNNING);
>  		prepare_to_wait(wq, &wait.wait, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
>  		spin_unlock(&journal->j_list_lock);

						- Ted
--
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