[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <12f09162-c92f-8fbb-8382-cba6188bfb29@molgen.mpg.de>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2021 13:58:06 +0100
From: Donald Buczek <buczek@...gen.mpg.de>
To: Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ud.ionos.com>,
Song Liu <song@...nel.org>, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
it+raid@...gen.mpg.de
Subject: Re: md_raid: mdX_raid6 looping after sync_action "check" to "idle"
transition
On 26.01.21 12:14, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
> Hi Donald,
>
> On 1/26/21 10:50, Donald Buczek wrote:
> [...]
>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
>>>> index 2d21c298ffa7..f40429843906 100644
>>>> --- a/drivers/md/md.c
>>>> +++ b/drivers/md/md.c
>>>> @@ -4687,11 +4687,13 @@ action_store(struct mddev *mddev, const char *page, size_t len)
>>>> clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, &mddev->recovery);
>>>> if (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &mddev->recovery) &&
>>>> mddev_lock(mddev) == 0) {
>>>> + set_bit(MD_ALLOW_SB_UPDATE, &mddev->flags);
>>>> flush_workqueue(md_misc_wq);
>>>> if (mddev->sync_thread) {
>>>> set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
>>>> md_reap_sync_thread(mddev);
>>>> }
>>>> + clear_bit(MD_ALLOW_SB_UPDATE, &mddev->flags);
>>>> mddev_unlock(mddev);
>>>> }
>>>> } else if (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &mddev->recovery))
>>>
>>> Yes, it could break the deadlock issue, but I am not sure if it is the right way given we only set ALLOW_SB_UPDATE in suspend which makes sense since the io will be quiesced, but write idle action can't guarantee the similar thing.
>>
>> Thinking (and documenting) MD_ALLOW_SB_UPDATE as "the holder of reconfig_mutex promises not to make any changes which would exclude superblocks from being written" might make it easier to accept the usage.
>
> I am not sure it is safe to set the flag here since write idle can't prevent IO from fs while mddev_suspend can guarantee that.
>
>>
>>> I prefer to make resync thread not wait forever here.
>>>
>
> [...]
>
>>>
>>> - sh = raid5_get_active_stripe(conf, new_sector, previous,
>>> + sh = raid5_get_active_stripe(conf, new_sector, previous, 0,
>>
>>
>> Mistake here (fourth argument added instead of third)
>
> Thanks for checking.
>
> [...]
>
>> Unfortunately, this patch did not fix the issue.
>>
>> root@...th:~/linux# cat /proc/$(pgrep md3_resync)/stack
>> [<0>] raid5_get_active_stripe+0x1e7/0x6b0
>> [<0>] raid5_sync_request+0x2a7/0x3d0
>> [<0>] md_do_sync.cold+0x3ee/0x97c
>> [<0>] md_thread+0xab/0x160
>> [<0>] kthread+0x11b/0x140
>> [<0>] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
>>
>> which is ( according to objdump -d -Sl drivers/md/raid5.o ) at https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v5.11-rc5/source/drivers/md/raid5.c#L735
>>
>> Isn't it still the case that the superblocks are not written, therefore stripes are not processed, therefore number of active stripes are not decreasing? Who is expected to wake up conf->wait_for_stripe waiters?
>
> Hmm, how about wake the waiter up in the while loop of raid5d?
>
> @@ -6520,6 +6532,11 @@ static void raid5d(struct md_thread *thread)
> md_check_recovery(mddev);
> spin_lock_irq(&conf->device_lock);
> }
> +
> + if ((atomic_read(&conf->active_stripes)
> + < (conf->max_nr_stripes * 3 / 4) ||
> + (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery))))
> + wake_up(&conf->wait_for_stripe);
> }
> pr_debug("%d stripes handled\n", handled);
Hmm... With this patch on top of your other one, we still have the basic symptoms (md3_raid6 busy looping), but the sync thread is now hanging at
root@...th:~# cat /proc/$(pgrep md3_resync)/stack
[<0>] md_do_sync.cold+0x8ec/0x97c
[<0>] md_thread+0xab/0x160
[<0>] kthread+0x11b/0x140
[<0>] ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
instead, which is https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/latest/source/drivers/md/md.c#L8963
And, unlike before, "md: md3: data-check interrupted." from the pr_info two lines above appears in dmesg.
Best
Donald
> If the issue still appears then I will change the waiter to break just if MD_RECOVERY_INTR is set, something like.
>
> wait_event_lock_irq(conf->wait_for_stripe,
> (test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery) && sync_req) ||
> /* the previous condition */,
> *(conf->hash_locks + hash));
>
> Thanks,
> Guoqing
Powered by blists - more mailing lists