linux-kernel - Re: dirty balancing deadlock

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: <E1HK8aw-0005Lg-00@dorka.pomaz.szeredi.hu>
Date:	Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:42:26 +0100
From:	Miklos Szeredi <miklos@...redi.hu>
To:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-mm@...ck.org
Subject: Re: dirty balancing deadlock

> > How about this?
> 
> I still don't understand this bug.
> 
> > Solves the FUSE deadlock, but not the throttle_vm_writeout() one.
> > I'll try to tackle that one as well.
> > 
> > If the per-bdi dirty counter goes below 16, balance_dirty_pages()
> > returns.
> > 
> > Does the constant need to tunable?  If it's too large, then the global
> > threshold is more easily exceeded.  If it's too small, then in a tight
> > situation progress will be slower.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Miklos
> > 
> > Index: linux/mm/page-writeback.c
> > ===================================================================
> > --- linux.orig/mm/page-writeback.c	2007-02-19 17:32:41.000000000 +0100
> > +++ linux/mm/page-writeback.c	2007-02-19 18:05:28.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -198,6 +198,25 @@ static void balance_dirty_pages(struct a
> >  			dirty_thresh)
> >  				break;
> >  
> > +		/*
> > +		 * Acquit this producer if there's little or nothing
> > +		 * to write back to this particular queue
> > +		 *
> > +		 * Without this check a deadlock is possible in the
> > +		 * following case:
> > +		 *
> > +		 * - filesystem A writes data through filesystem B
> > +		 * - filesystem A has dirty pages over dirty_thresh
> > +		 * - writeback is started, this triggers a write in B
> > +		 * - balance_dirty_pages() is called synchronously
> > +		 * - the write to B blocks
> > +		 * - the writeback completes, but dirty is still over threshold
> > +		 * - the blocking write prevents futher writes from happening
> > +		 */
> > +		if (atomic_long_read(&bdi->nr_dirty) +
> > +		    atomic_long_read(&bdi->nr_writeback) < 16)
> > +			break;
> > +
> 
> The problem seems to that little "- the write to B blocks".
> 
> How come it blocks?  I mean, if we cannot retire writes to that filesystem
> then we're screwed anyway.

Sorry about the sloppy description.  I mean, it's not the lowlevel
write that will block, but rather the VFS one
(generic_file_aio_write).  It will block (or rather loop forever with
0.1 second sleeps) in balance_dirty_pages().  That means, that for
this inode, i_mutex is held and no other writer can continue the work.

Miklos
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/