Date:   Thu, 1 Oct 2020 09:34:33 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Mauricio Faria de Oliveira <mfo@...onical.com>
Cc:     Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Andreas Dilger <adilger@...ger.ca>,
        linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
        dann frazier <dann.frazier@...onical.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v4 0/4] ext4/jbd2: data=journal: write-protect pages
 on transaction commit

On Wed 30-09-20 19:59:44, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 29, 2020 at 8:37 AM Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon 28-09-20 16:40:59, Mauricio Faria de Oliveira wrote:
> > > Hey Jan,
> > >
> > > This series implements your suggestions for the RFC PATCH v3 set [1].
> > >
> > > That addressed the issue you confirmed with block_page_mkwrite() [2].
> > > There's no "JBD2: Spotted dirty metadata buffer" message in over 72h
> > > runs across 3 VMs (it used to happen within a few hours.) *Thanks!*
> > >
> > > I added Reviewed-by: tags for the patches/changes you mentioned.
> > > The only changes from v3 are patch 3 which is new, and contains
> > > the 2 fixes to ext4_page_mkwrite(); and patch 4 changed 'struct
> > > writeback_control.nr_to_write' from ~0ULL to LONG_MAX, since it
> > > is signed long (~0ULL overflows to -1; kudos, kernel test robot!)
> > >
> > > It looks almost good on fstests: zero regressions on data=ordered,
> > > and two apparently flaky tests data=journal (generic/347 _passed_
> > > 1/6 times with the patch, and generic/547 failed 1/6 times.)
> >
> > Cool. Neither of these tests has anything to do with mmap. The first test
> > checks what happens when thin provisioned storage runs out of space (and
> > that fs remains consistent), the second tests that fsync flushed properly
> > all data and that it can be seen after a crash. So I'm reasonably confident
> > that it isn't caused by your patches. It still might be a bug in
> > data=journal implementation though but that would be something for another
> > patch series :).
> >
> 
> Hey Jan,
> 
> That's good to hear! Now that the patchset seems to be in good shape,
> I worked on testing it these last 2 days. Good and mixed-feelings news. :-)
> 
> 1) For ext4 first, I have put 2 VMs to run fstests in a loop overnight,
> (original and patched kernels, ~20 runs each). It looks like the patched VM
> has more variance of failed/flaky tests, but the "average failure set" holds.
> 
> I think some of the failures were flaky or timing related, because when I ran
> some tests, e.g. generic/371 a hundred times (./check -i 100 generic/371)
> then it only failed 6 out of 100 times. So I didn't look much more into it, but
> should you feel like recommending a more careful look, I'll be happy to do it.
> 
> For documentation purposes, the results on v5.9-rc7 and next-20200930,
> showing no "permanent" regressions. Good news :)
> 
>     data=ordered:
>     Failures: ext4/045 generic/044 generic/045 generic/046 generic/051
> generic/223 generic/388 generic/465 generic/475 generic/553
> generic/554 generic/555 generic/565 generic/611
> 
>     data=journal:
>     Failures: ext4/045 generic/051 generic/223 generic/347 generic/388
> generic/441 generic/475 generic/553 generic/554 generic/555
> generic/565 generic/611
> 
> 2) For OCFS2, I just had to change where we set the callbacks in (patch 2.)
> (I'll include that in the next, hopefully non-RFC patchset, with
> Andreas suggestions.)
> 
> Then a local mount also has no regressions on "stress-ng --class filesystem,io".
> Good news too :)  For reference, the steps:
> 
>     # mkfs.ocfs2 --mount local $DEV
>     # mount $DEV $MNT
>     # cd $MNT
>     # stress-ng --sequential 0 --class filesystem,io

OK, these look sane. Nothing that would particularly worry me wrt this
patch set although some of those errors (e.g. the flaky generic/371 test
or generic/441 failure) would warrant closer look.

> 3) Now, the mixed-feelings news.
> 
> The synthetic test-case/patches I had written clearly show that the
> patchset works:
> - In the original kernel, userspace can write to buffers during
> commit; and it moves on.
> - In the patched kernel, userspace cannot write to buffers during
> commit; it blocks.
> 
> However, the heavy-hammer testing with 'stress-ng --mmap 4xNCPUs --mmap-file'
> then crashing the kernel via sysrq-trigger, and trying to mount the
> filesystem again,
> sometimes still can find invalid checksums, thus journal recovery/mount fails.
> 
>     [   98.194809] JBD2: Invalid checksum recovering data block 109704 in log
>     [   98.201853] JBD2: Invalid checksum recovering data block 69959 in log
>     [   98.339859] JBD2: recovery failed
>     [   98.340581] EXT4-fs (vdc): error loading journal
> 
> So, despite the test exercising mmap() and the patchset being for mmap(),
> apparently there is more happening that also needs changes. (Weird; but
> I will try to debug that test-case behavior deeper, to find what's going on.)
> 
> This patchset does address a problem, so should we move on with this one,
> and as you mentioned, "that would be something for another patch series :)" ?

Thanks for the really throughout testing! If you can debug where the
problem is still lurking fast, then cool, we can still fix it in this patch
series. If not, then I'm fine with just pushing what we have because
conceptually that seems like a sane thing to do anyway and we can fix the
remaining problem afterwards.

								Honza
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR

Powered by blists - more mailing lists