[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <573C4961.7050609@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:52:17 +0800
From: Hou Pengyang <houpengyang@...wei.com>
To: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@...nel.org>
CC: Chao Yu <chao@...nel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [RFC] f2fs: fix a race condition between evict & gc
On 2016/5/18 1:23, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 11:00:53AM +0800, Hou Pengyang wrote:
>> On 2016/5/16 23:10, Chao Yu wrote:
>> Hi chao,
>>> Hi Pengyang,
>>>
>>> On 2016/5/16 18:40, Hou Pengyang wrote:
>>>> When collecting data segment(gc_data_segment), there is a race condition
>>>> between evict and phases of gc:
>>>> 0) ra_node_page(dnode)
>>>> 1) ra_node_page(inode)
>>>> <--- evict the inode
>>>> 2) f2fs_iget get the inode and add it to gc_list
>>>> 3) move_data_page
>>>>
>>>> In step 2), f2fs_iget does NOT find the inode and allocs a new inode as result,
>>>
>>> If inode was unlinked and then be evicted, f2fs_iget should fail when reading
>>> inode's page as blkaddr of this node is null.
>> agree, after do_read_inode fail, the newly created inode would be
>> freed as a bad inode and f2fs_iget fails. But this may lead to create
>> file fail:
>> gc:iget_locked
>> <---- touch/mkdir(reuse the evicted ino)
>> gc:free the bad inode
>
> Seems there is no problem.
>
> After f2fs_evict_inode(ino),
>
> f2fs_iget(ino)
> - iget_failed() f2fs_create()
> - f2fs_new_inode()
> - ino = alloc_nid()
> - insert_inode_locked()
> *** spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock)
> - spin_lock(&old->i_lock)
> - __iget(old)
> - make_bad_inode() - spin_unlock(&old->i_lock)
> - remove_inode_hash() - spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock)
> - spin_lock(&inode_hash_lock) - wait_on_inode(old)
oh.. wait_on_inode. OK, Kim, get it, thanks for your answer.
> - spin_lock(&inode->i_lock)
> - list_del
> - spin_unlock(&inode->i_lock)
> - spin_unlock(&inode_hash_lock)
> - unlock_new_inode()
> - wake_up_bit(&inode->i_state, __I_NEW) --> wake up!
> - iput(old) whish was unhashed.
> - goto to ***
> - iput()
>
>> during the bad inode allocated and freed in gc, the inode is reserved
>> in the global inode_hash, while the ino is a free nid in free_nid tree.
>>
>> touch/mkdir may reuse the ino, during the touch/mkdir path, the global
>> inode_hash would be checked if the ino file exists. Under this
>> scenario, because of the gc bad inode in inode_hash, touch/mkdir would
>> fail.
>>
>> ilookup seems better, as no need to alloc and free a bad inode.
>>
>> if ilookup fails, that exactly means inode has been evicted and no need
>> to gc;
>
> No, we should do gc for data blocks owned by *evicted* inodes as well.
>
> Thanks,
>
>> if ilookup success, before phase 3, is_alive to deal with the ino reuse
>> scenario;
>>
>> Do I miss anything else?
>> thanks
>>> If inode still have non-zero nlink value and then be evicted, we should allow gc
>>> thread to reference this inode for moving its data pages.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>> which is not resonable.
>>>>
>>>> This patch changes f2fs_iget to ilookup. when no inode is found, no new inode is
>>>> created.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Hou Pengyang <houpengyang@...wei.com>
>>>> ---
>>>> fs/f2fs/gc.c | 4 ++--
>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> index 38d56f6..6e73193 100644
>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c
>>>> @@ -717,8 +717,8 @@ next_step:
>>>> ofs_in_node = le16_to_cpu(entry->ofs_in_node);
>>>>
>>>> if (phase == 2) {
>>>> - inode = f2fs_iget(sb, dni.ino);
>>>> - if (IS_ERR(inode) || is_bad_inode(inode))
>>>> + inode = ilookup(sb, dni.ino);
>>>> + if (!inode || IS_ERR(inode) || is_bad_inode(inode))
>>>> continue;
>>>>
>>>> /* if encrypted inode, let's go phase 3 */
>>>>
>>>
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Mobile security can be enabling, not merely restricting. Employees who
>> bring their own devices (BYOD) to work are irked by the imposition of MDM
>> restrictions. Mobile Device Manager Plus allows you to control only the
>> apps on BYO-devices by containerizing them, leaving personal data untouched!
>> https://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/304595813;131938128;j
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>
> .
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists