[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <ZEpH+GEj33aUGoAD@ovpn-8-26.pek2.redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2023 18:01:28 +0800
From: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
To: Baokun Li <libaokun1@...wei.com>
Cc: Matthew Wilcox <willy@...radead.org>,
Theodore Ts'o <tytso@....edu>, linux-ext4@...r.kernel.org,
Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@...ger.ca>,
linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Dave Chinner <dchinner@...hat.com>,
Eric Sandeen <sandeen@...hat.com>,
Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, Zhang Yi <yi.zhang@...hat.com>,
yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>, ming.lei@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [ext4 io hang] buffered write io hang in balance_dirty_pages
On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 02:36:51PM +0800, Baokun Li wrote:
> On 2023/4/27 12:50, Ming Lei wrote:
> > Hello Matthew,
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 04:58:36AM +0100, Matthew Wilcox wrote:
> > > On Thu, Apr 27, 2023 at 10:20:28AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote:
> > > > Hello Guys,
> > > >
> > > > I got one report in which buffered write IO hangs in balance_dirty_pages,
> > > > after one nvme block device is unplugged physically, then umount can't
> > > > succeed.
> > > That's a feature, not a bug ... the dd should continue indefinitely?
> > Can you explain what the feature is? And not see such 'issue' or 'feature'
> > on xfs.
> >
> > The device has been gone, so IMO it is reasonable to see FS buffered write IO
> > failed. Actually dmesg has shown that 'EXT4-fs (nvme0n1): Remounting
> > filesystem read-only'. Seems these things may confuse user.
>
>
> The reason for this difference is that ext4 and xfs handle errors
> differently.
>
> ext4 remounts the filesystem as read-only or even just continues, vfs_write
> does not check for these.
vfs_write may not find anything wrong, but ext4 remount could see that
disk is gone, which might happen during or after remount, however.
>
> xfs shuts down the filesystem, so it returns a failure at
> xfs_file_write_iter when it finds an error.
>
>
> ``` ext4
> ksys_write
> vfs_write
> ext4_file_write_iter
> ext4_buffered_write_iter
> ext4_write_checks
> file_modified
> file_modified_flags
> __file_update_time
> inode_update_time
> generic_update_time
> __mark_inode_dirty
> ext4_dirty_inode ---> 2. void func, No propagating errors out
> __ext4_journal_start_sb
> ext4_journal_check_start ---> 1. Error found, remount-ro
> generic_perform_write ---> 3. No error sensed, continue
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited
> balance_dirty_pages_ratelimited_flags
> balance_dirty_pages
> // 4. Sleeping waiting for dirty pages to be freed
> __set_current_state(TASK_KILLABLE)
> io_schedule_timeout(pause);
> ```
>
> ``` xfs
> ksys_write
> vfs_write
> xfs_file_write_iter
> if (xfs_is_shutdown(ip->i_mount))
> return -EIO; ---> dd fail
> ```
Thanks for the info which is really helpful for me to understand the
problem.
> > > balance_dirty_pages() is sleeping in KILLABLE state, so kill -9 of
> > > the dd process should succeed.
> > Yeah, dd can be killed, however it may be any application(s), :-)
> >
> > Fortunately it won't cause trouble during reboot/power off, given
> > userspace will be killed at that time.
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Ming
> >
> Don't worry about that, we always set the current thread to TASK_KILLABLE
>
> while waiting in balance_dirty_pages().
I have another concern, if 'dd' isn't killed, dirty pages won't be cleaned, and
these (big amount)memory becomes not usable, and typical scenario could be USB HDD
unplugged.
thanks,
Ming
Powered by blists - more mailing lists