linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/9] writeback: introduce the pageout work

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]

Date:	Thu, 8 Mar 2012 23:31:13 -0800
From:	Fengguang Wu <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
To:	Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>,
	Greg Thelen <gthelen@...gle.com>,
	Ying Han <yinghan@...gle.com>,
	"hannes@...xchg.org" <hannes@...xchg.org>,
	KAMEZAWA Hiroyuki <kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>, Mel Gorman <mgorman@...e.de>,
	Minchan Kim <minchan.kim@...il.com>,
	Linux Memory Management List <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/9] writeback: introduce the pageout work

Artem,

On Wed, Mar 07, 2012 at 05:48:21PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Sat, 2012-03-03 at 21:55 +0800, Fengguang Wu wrote:
> >   13   1125  /c/linux/fs/ubifs/file.c <<do_truncation>>   <===== deadlockable
> 
> Sorry, but could you please explain once again how the deadlock may
> happen?

Sorry I confused ubifs do_truncation() with the truncate_inode_pages()
that may be called from iput().

The once suspected deadlock scheme is when the flusher thread calls
the final iput:

        flusher thread
          iput_final
            <some ubifs function>
              ubifs_budget_space
                shrink_liability
                  writeback_inodes_sb
                    writeback_inodes_sb_nr
                      bdi_queue_work
                      wait_for_completion  => end up waiting for the flusher itself

However I cannot find any ubifs functions to form the above loop, so
ubifs should be safe for now.

> > It seems they are all safe except for ubifs. ubifs may actually
> > deadlock from the above do_truncation() caller. However it should be
> > fixable because the ubifs call for writeback_inodes_sb_nr() sounds
> > very brute force writeback and wait and there may well be better way
> > out.
> 
> I do not think this "fixable" - this is part of UBIFS design to force
> write-back when we are not sure we have enough space.
> 
> The problem is that we do not know how much space the dirty data in RAM
> will take on the flash media (after it is actually written-back) - e.g.,
> because we compress all the data (UBIFS performs on-the-flight
> compression). So we do pessimistic assumptions and allow dirtying more
> and more data as long as we know for sure that there is enough flash
> space on the media for the worst-case scenario (data are not
> compressible). This is what the UBIFS budgeting subsystem does.
> 
> Once the budgeting sub-system sees that we are not going to have enough
> flash space for the worst-case scenario, it starts forcing write-back to
> push some dirty data out to the flash media and update the budgeting
> numbers, and get more realistic picture.
> 
> So basically, before you can change _anything_ on UBIFS file-system, you
> need to budget for the space. Even when you truncate - because
> truncation is also about allocating more space for writing the updated
> inode and update the FS index. (Remember, all writes are out-of-place in
> UBIFS because we work with raw flash, not a block device).

Thanks for the detailed explanations!

Judging from the git log, ubifs starts with flushing NR_TO_WRITE=16
pages at one time commit 2acf80675800d ("UBIFS: simplify
make_free_space") and is later changed to flushing *the whole*
superblock by a writeback change ("writeback: get rid of
generic_sync_sb_inodes() export"). This could greatly increase the
wait time. I'd suggest to limit the write chunk size to about 125ms
as the below change:

--- linux.orig/fs/ubifs/budget.c	2012-03-08 23:16:01.661194026 -0800
+++ linux/fs/ubifs/budget.c	2012-03-08 23:16:02.477194003 -0800
@@ -63,7 +63,9 @@
 static void shrink_liability(struct ubifs_info *c, int nr_to_write)
 {
 	down_read(&c->vfs_sb->s_umount);
-	writeback_inodes_sb(c->vfs_sb, WB_REASON_FS_FREE_SPACE);
+	writeback_inodes_sb_nr(c->vfs_sb,
+			       c->bdi.avg_write_bandwidth / 8 + nr_to_write,
+			       WB_REASON_FS_FREE_SPACE);
 	up_read(&c->vfs_sb->s_umount);
 }
 
Here nr_to_write=16 merely serves as some minimal safeguard in case
bdi.avg_write_bandwidth drops to 0. Perhaps we can eliminate the
parameter and use the constant number directly.

Thanks,
Fengguang
--
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/