[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD+ocbzyHdb+Du+7dDePazue649nr6H=A-pCPo5S1+PSEQMhyQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2022 07:28:11 -0700
From: harshad shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Ext4 Developers List <linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org>,
Ritesh Harjani <riteshh@...ux.ibm.com>,
"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@....edu>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/6] ext4: for committing inode, make
ext4_fc_track_inode wait
Thanks for the review. Some questions / comments below:
On Wed, 27 Apr 2022 at 08:50, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>
> On Tue 19-04-22 10:31:39, Harshad Shirwadkar wrote:
> > From: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
> >
> > If the inode that's being requested to track using ext4_fc_track_inode
> > is being committed, then wait until the inode finishes the
> > commit. Also, add calls to ext4_fc_track_inode at the right places.
> >
> > With this patch, now calling ext4_reserve_inode_write() results in
> > inode being tracked for next fast commit. A subtle lock ordering
> > requirement with i_data_sem (which is documented in the code) requires
> > that ext4_fc_track_inode() be called before grabbing i_data_sem. So,
> > this patch also adds explicit ext4_fc_track_inode() calls in places
> > where i_data_sem grabbed.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Harshad Shirwadkar <harshadshirwadkar@...il.com>
> > ---
> > fs/ext4/fast_commit.c | 38 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > fs/ext4/inline.c | 3 +++
> > fs/ext4/inode.c | 5 ++++-
> > 3 files changed, 45 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > index c278060a15bc..55f4c5ddd8e5 100644
> > --- a/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > +++ b/fs/ext4/fast_commit.c
> > + /*
> > + * If we come here, we may sleep while waiting for the inode to
> > + * commit. We shouldn't be holding i_data_sem in write mode when we go
> > + * to sleep since the commit path needs to grab the lock while
> > + * committing the inode.
> > + */
> > + WARN_ON(lockdep_is_held_type(&ei->i_data_sem, 1));
>
> Note that we can deadlock even if we had i_data_sem for reading because
> another reader is not allowed to get the rwsem if there is writer waiting
> for it. So we need to check even that case here.
I turned the above WARN_ON to check if data_sem is held in either read
or write mode and now I am seeing many other places where data_sem
gets grabbed in read mode before calling ext4_fc_track_inode(). We
either need to call ext4_fc_track_inode() before all
ext4_reserve_inode_write() in all those cases, or ensure that places
that acquire in data_sem in write mode, wait if there's an ongoing
commit and only then lock data_sem.
>
> > + while (ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING)) {
> > +#if (BITS_PER_LONG < 64)
> > + DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &ei->i_state_flags,
> > + EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING);
> > + wq = bit_waitqueue(&ei->i_state_flags,
> > + EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING);
> > +#else
> > + DEFINE_WAIT_BIT(wait, &ei->i_flags,
> > + EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING);
> > + wq = bit_waitqueue(&ei->i_flags,
> > + EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING);
> > +#endif
> > + prepare_to_wait(wq, &wait.wq_entry, TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> > + if (ext4_test_inode_state(inode, EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING))
> > + schedule();
> > + finish_wait(wq, &wait.wq_entry);
> > + }
> > +
> > ret = ext4_fc_track_template(handle, inode, __track_inode, NULL, 1);
> > trace_ext4_fc_track_inode(handle, inode, ret);
>
> As we discussed in the call we should tell lockdep that this is equivalent
> to lock+unlock of let's say fc_committing_lock and the fastcommit code
> setting / clearing EXT4_STATE_FC_COMMITTING is equivalent to lock / unlock
> of fc_committing_lock. That way we get proper lockdep tracking of this
> waiting primitive.
Sure, so you mean just adding __acquires() / __releases() annotations
in these places right?
- Harshad
>
> Honza
>
> --
> Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
> SUSE Labs, CR
Powered by blists - more mailing lists