| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <20150731104604.GB22869@quack.suse.cz>
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 12:46:04 +0200
From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To: Lukáš Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd2: Limit number of reserved credits
On Fri 31-07-15 12:22:43, Lukáš Czerner wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2015, Jan Kara wrote:
>
> > Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2015 11:46:39 +0200
> > From: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
> > To: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> > Cc: linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org, jack@...e.cz
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH] jbd2: Limit number of reserved credits
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > On Fri 31-07-15 10:04:23, Lukas Czerner wrote:
> > > Currently there is no limitation on number of reserved credits we can
> > > ask for. If we ask for more reserved credits than 1/2 of maximum
> > > transaction size, or if total number of credits exceeds the maximum
> > > transaction size per operation (which is currently only possible with
> > > the former) we will spin forever in start_this_handle().
> > >
> > > Fix this by adding this limitation at the start of start_this_handle().
> > >
> > > This patch also removes the credit limitation 1/2 of maximum transaction
> > > size, since we really only want to limit the number of reserved credits.
> > > There is not much point to limit the credits if there is still space in
> > > the journal.
> > >
> > > This accidentally also fixes the online resize, where due to the
> > > limitation of the journal credits we're unable to grow file systems with
> > > 1k block size and size between 16M and 32M. It has been partially fixed
> > > by 2c869b262a10ca99cb866d04087d75311587a30c, but not entirely.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Lukas Czerner <lczerner@...hat.com>
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Honzo I think that this should be enough to remove the limitation of 1/2 of
> > > maximum transaction size for regular credits, but I might be missing
> > > something, please let me know. Also do you have any specific test case to
> > > exercise transaction reservation support - I've only ran xfstests.
> > >
> > > fs/jbd2/transaction.c | 22 +++++++++++++---------
> > > 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> > > index f3d0617..491a328 100644
> > > --- a/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> > > +++ b/fs/jbd2/transaction.c
> > > @@ -262,20 +262,24 @@ static int start_this_handle(journal_t *journal, handle_t *handle,
> > > int rsv_blocks = 0;
> > > unsigned long ts = jiffies;
> > >
> > > + if (handle->h_rsv_handle)
> > > + rsv_blocks = handle->h_rsv_handle->h_buffer_credits;
> > > +
> > > /*
> > > - * 1/2 of transaction can be reserved so we can practically handle
> > > - * only 1/2 of maximum transaction size per operation
> > > + * Limit the number of reserved credits to 1/2 of maximum transaction
> > > + * size and limit the number of total credits to not exceed maximum
> > > + * transaction size per operation.
> > > */
> > > - if (WARN_ON(blocks > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers / 2)) {
> > > - printk(KERN_ERR "JBD2: %s wants too many credits (%d > %d)\n",
> > > - current->comm, blocks,
> > > - journal->j_max_transaction_buffers / 2);
> > > + if ((rsv_blocks > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers / 2) ||
> > > + (rsv_blocks + blocks > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers)) {
> > > + printk(KERN_ERR "JBD2: %s wants too many credits "
> > > + "credits:%d rsv_credits:%d max:%d\n",
> > > + current->comm, blocks, rsv_blocks,
> > > + journal->j_max_transaction_buffers);
> > > + WARN_ON(1);
> > > return -ENOSPC;
> > > }
> >
> > Well, the trouble with this is the following: The currently running
> > transaction has X reserved credits and Y normal credits. We know X+Y <=
> > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers. Now you request additional A reserved
> > and B normal credits. Suppose we cannot fit in the current transaction -
> > i.e., X+Y+A+B > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers. The only thing we can do
> > is to push running transaction to commit and start a new one. However, the
> > new transaction will also have X reserved credits - you inherit reserved
> > credits from the previous transaction until they are converted to normal
> > credits. So if X+A+B is still > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers, you
> > still cannot start current handle and you'd have to wait until someone
> > converts his reserved credits.
>
> Ok I understand, but isn't this true either way ? If anything the
> limit might make it worse in that case because if
>
> X+A+B is still > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers
>
> in the new case without the limit then it's definitely true for the
> case with the limit as well. The number of reserved credits is
> limited in both cases so it's not really a factor, is it ?
>
> Yes in the limitless case it might happen that we have so much
> normal credits that we can't fit in the reserved credits so we have
> to commit and start a new one, but that's true in both cases only
> with the limit it will happen sooner and possible more often because
> we just have less space to work with.
>
> Sorry if I am asking dumb questions, but I am trying to understand
> how is this supposed to work.
>
> And above all that limitation we're talking about is a hard limit
> which you're not supposed to hit ever. Only if something is really
> wrong and is asking for a handle with way too much credits...that's
> not what can normally happen. So what's the problem again ?
Thanks for correcting me! I was conflating two different conditions in the
transaction handling code. So with the change you propose, it would be only
possible that starting of large handles would keep pushing transactions to
commit because it couldn't fit the handle into the running transaction
because of reserved credits. So if we wanted to relieve the condition as
you suggest, we'd also need to modify the logic in
add_transaction_credits() to wait on j_wait_reserved in case number of
reserved credits of current trans + number of credits requested for the handle
is too big. But that looks doable...
Honza
>
> Thanks!
> -Lukas
>
>
> >
> > However these waits will create journal stalls causing possible performance
> > issues and also introduce a lock dependency - suddently you are not allowed
> > to acquire locks ranking above transaction start before starting a reserved
> > handle (as these locks can be held by processes being stuck waiting for
> > reserved credits to convert).
> >
> > So overall halving the maximum allowed credits seemed like the least
> > painful solution to the problem.
> >
> > Honza
> > >
> > > - if (handle->h_rsv_handle)
> > > - rsv_blocks = handle->h_rsv_handle->h_buffer_credits;
> > > -
> > > alloc_transaction:
> > > if (!journal->j_running_transaction) {
> > > /*
> > > --
> > > 1.8.3.1
> > >
> >
--
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR
--
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