Message-ID: <49C869D0.1030405@themaw.net>
Date:	Tue, 24 Mar 2009 14:04:16 +0900
From:	Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC:	Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	jens.axboe@...cle.com, Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] writeback: reset inode dirty time when adding it back
 to empty s_dirty list

Ian Kent wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Mar 2009, Jeff Layton wrote:
> 
>> This may be a problem on other filesystems too, but the reproducer I
>> have involves NFS.
>>
>> On NFS, the __mark_inode_dirty() call after writing back the inode is
>> done in the rpc_release handler for COMMIT calls. This call is done
>> asynchronously after the call completes.
>>
>> Because there's no real coordination between __mark_inode_dirty() and
>> __sync_single_inode(), it's often the case that these two calls will
>> race and __mark_inode_dirty() will get called while I_SYNC is still set.
>> When this happens, __sync_single_inode() should detect that the inode
>> was redirtied while we were flushing it and call redirty_tail() to put
>> it back on the s_dirty list.
>>
>> When redirty_tail() puts it back on the list, it only resets the
>> dirtied_when value if it's necessary to maintain the list order. Given
>> the right situation (the right I/O patterns and a lot of luck), this
>> could result in dirtied_when never getting updated on an inode that's
>> constantly being redirtied while pdflush is writing it back.
>>
>> Since dirtied_when is based on jiffies, it's possible for it to persist
>> across 2 sign-bit flips of jiffies. When that happens, the time_after()
>> check in sync_sb_inodes no longer works correctly and writeouts by
>> pdflush of this inode and any inodes after it on the list stop.
>>
>> This patch fixes this by resetting the dirtied_when value on an inode
>> when we're adding it back onto an empty s_dirty list. Since we generally
>> write inodes from oldest to newest dirtied_when values, this has the
>> effect of making it so that these inodes don't end up with dirtied_when
>> values that are frozen.
>>
>> I've also taken the liberty of fixing up the comments a bit and changed
>> the !time_after_eq() check in redirty_tail to be time_before().  That
>> should be functionally equivalent but I think it's more readable.
>>
>> I wish this were just a theoretical problem, but we've had a customer
>> hit a variant of it in an older kernel. Newer upstream kernels have a
>> number of changes that make this problem less likely. As best I can tell
>> though, there is nothing that really prevents it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>
> Acked-by: Ian Kent <raven@...maw.net>
> 
> The assumption is that all inodes heading for the s_dirty list will get 
> their by calling redirty_tail(). It looks like that's the case but, Andrew 
> do you agree the assumption holds?

Oh .. hang on, that's now quite right.

Or that dirtied_when has been set to jiffies at the time of the move 
(aka a newly dirtied inode).

> 
>> ---
>>  fs/fs-writeback.c |   22 +++++++++++++++++-----
>>  1 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> index e3fe991..bd2a7ff 100644
>> --- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> +++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
>> @@ -184,19 +184,31 @@ static int write_inode(struct inode *inode, int sync)
>>   * furthest end of its superblock's dirty-inode list.
>>   *
>>   * Before stamping the inode's ->dirtied_when, we check to see whether it is
>> - * already the most-recently-dirtied inode on the s_dirty list.  If that is
>> - * the case then the inode must have been redirtied while it was being written
>> - * out and we don't reset its dirtied_when.
>> + * "newer" or equal to that of the most-recently-dirtied inode on the s_dirty
>> + * list. If that is the case then we don't need to restamp it to maintain the
>> + * order of the list.
>> + *
>> + * If s_dirty is empty however, then we need to go ahead and update
>> + * dirtied_when for the inode. Not doing so will mean that inodes that are
>> + * constantly being redirtied can end up with "stuck" dirtied_when values if
>> + * they happen to consistently be the first one to go back on the list.
>> + *
>> + * Since we're using jiffies values in that field, letting dirtied_when grow
>> + * too old will be problematic if jiffies wraps. It may also be causing
>> + * pdflush to flush the inode too often since it'll always look like it was
>> + * dirtied a long time ago.
>>   */
>>  static void redirty_tail(struct inode *inode)
>>  {
>>  	struct super_block *sb = inode->i_sb;
>>  
>> -	if (!list_empty(&sb->s_dirty)) {
>> +	if (list_empty(&sb->s_dirty)) {
>> +		inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
>> +	} else {
>>  		struct inode *tail_inode;
>>  
>>  		tail_inode = list_entry(sb->s_dirty.next, struct inode, i_list);
>> -		if (!time_after_eq(inode->dirtied_when,
>> +		if (time_before(inode->dirtied_when,
>>  				tail_inode->dirtied_when))
>>  			inode->dirtied_when = jiffies;
>>  	}
>> -- 
>> 1.6.0.6
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
> --
> 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/

--
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/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists