Message-ID: <CALTww29-yJ-vw4z5WLoE0c-8CggUdTZjGJNc8YivUUAcPoxRtg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2024 16:45:53 +0800
From: Xiao Ni <xni@...hat.com>
To: Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>
Cc: mpatocka@...hat.com, heinzm@...hat.com, blazej.kucman@...ux.intel.com, 
	agk@...hat.com, snitzer@...nel.org, dm-devel@...ts.linux.dev, song@...nel.org, 
	jbrassow@....redhat.com, neilb@...e.de, shli@...com, akpm@...l.org, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, yi.zhang@...wei.com, 
	yangerkun@...wei.com, "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 09/14] dm-raid: really frozen sync_thread during suspend

On Mon, Feb 19, 2024 at 3:53 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2024/02/19 15:27, Xiao Ni 写道:
> > On Sun, Feb 18, 2024 at 2:34 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 在 2024/02/18 12:53, Xiao Ni 写道:
> >>> Hi Kuai
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2024 at 5:30 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) The flag MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN doesn't mean that sync thread is frozen,
> >>>>      it only prevent new sync_thread to start, and it can't stop the
> >>>>      running sync thread;
> >>>
> >>> Agree with this
> >>>
> >>>> 2) The flag MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN doesn't mean that writes are stopped, use
> >>>>      it as condition for md_stop_writes() in raid_postsuspend() doesn't
> >>>>      look correct.
> >>>
> >>> I don't agree with it. __md_stop_writes stops sync thread, so it needs
> >>> to check this flag. And It looks like the name __md_stop_writes is not
> >>> right. Does it really stop write io? mddev_suspend should be the
> >>> function that stop write request. From my understanding,
> >>> raid_postsuspend does two jobs. One is stopping sync thread. Two is
> >>> suspending array.
> >>
> >> MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN is not just used in __md_stop_writes(), so I think
> >> it's not correct to to check this. For example, if MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN is
> >> set by raid_message(), then __md_stop_writes() will be skipped.
> >
> > Hi Kuai
> >
> > raid_message sets MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN and it stops the sync thread
> > synchronously. So it doesn't need __md_stop_writes. So from md and
> > dmraid, it has a rule. If you set MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, you're in the
> > process of stopping sync thread.
>
> There are so much problems here, I'm not sure if you really walk through
> all patches here.

I haven't read all of them. But as you mentioned, the following
patches are based on patch01. They work together.  I want to narrow
the change to fix these regression problems. But it depends on the
song's decision.

>
> 1) stop the sync_thread synchronously is problematic, and raid_message()
> doesn't even hold 'reconfig_mutex' for md_reap_sync_thread();
> 2) skip __md_stop_writes() because sycn_thread is stopped is wrong,
> __md_stop_writes() does more work.

Agree with this. We can use the same way as action_store does. But we
can do this later, not this patch set.

> >
> >>
> >>>
> >>>> 3) raid_message can set/clear the flag MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN at anytime,
> >>>>      and if MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN is cleared while the array is suspended,
> >>>>      new sync_thread can start unexpected.
> >>>
> >>> md_action_store doesn't check this either. If the array is suspended
> >>> and MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN is cleared, before patch01, sync thread can't
> >>> happen. So it looks like patch01 breaks the logic.
> >>
> >> The difference is that md/raid doen't need to frozen sync_thread while
> >> suspending the array for now. And I don't understand at all why sync
> >> thread can't happed before patch01.
> >
> > There is a condition you mentioned above -- the array is suspended.
> > Before patch01, if one array is suspended, the sync thread can't
> 3) before patch 1, sync_thread can still running even if array is
> suspended;
> And even without patch 1, raid_message() can still start new
> sync_thread:
>
> // assume sync_thread is not register
> raid_postsuspend        raid_message
>   md_stop_writes
>                          set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, &mddev->recovery)
>                          if (!mddev->suspended)
>                           md_wakeup_thread
>                           // new sync_thread is registered
>   mddev_suspend

The array is not suspended in the above case. Before patch01, after
mddev_suspend, sync thread can't start.

But this looks like a problem. I'm not sure if dm has a way to handle
the concurrency. In md, we have a new lock sync_mutex to protect this,
right? If dm doesn't do this, dm-raid can do the same thing as md
does.

>
> > happen. Even raid_messages clears MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, the sync thread
> > can't start. After resume the array, the sync thread can start again.
>
> 4) I think I don't need to explain again why suspended should not be
> used to prevent starting new sync_thread;

Yes. I understand you. But I only follow the existing logic. It has
been there for many years. Especially for dmraid/lvmraid, maybe there
are some codes that depend on this logic. For such a change, I don't
reject it 100%. I just want to say we need to be more careful.

Best Regards
Xiao
>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
> >
> > Regards
> > Xiao
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Kuai
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Regards
> >>> Xiao
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Fix above problems by using the new helper to suspend the array during
> >>>> suspend, also disallow raid_message() to change sync_thread status
> >>>> during suspend.
> >>>>
> >>>> Note that after commit f52f5c71f3d4 ("md: fix stopping sync thread"), the
> >>>> test shell/lvconvert-raid-reshape.sh start to hang in stop_sync_thread(),
> >>>> and with previous fixes, the test won't hang there anymore, however, the
> >>>> test will still fail and complain that ext4 is corrupted. And with this
> >>>> patch, the test won't hang due to stop_sync_thread() or fail due to ext4
> >>>> is corrupted anymore. However, there is still a deadlock related to
> >>>> dm-raid456 that will be fixed in following patches.
> >>>>
> >>>> Reported-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@...hat.com>
> >>>> Closes: https://lore.kernel.org/all/e5e8afe2-e9a8-49a2-5ab0-958d4065c55e@redhat.com/
> >>>> Fixes: 1af2048a3e87 ("dm raid: fix deadlock caused by premature md_stop_writes()")
> >>>> Fixes: 9dbd1aa3a81c ("dm raid: add reshaping support to the target")
> >>>> Fixes: f52f5c71f3d4 ("md: fix stopping sync thread")
> >>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
> >>>> ---
> >>>>    drivers/md/dm-raid.c | 38 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
> >>>>    1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
> >>>>
> >>>> diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
> >>>> index eb009d6bb03a..5ce3c6020b1b 100644
> >>>> --- a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
> >>>> +++ b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
> >>>> @@ -3240,11 +3240,12 @@ static int raid_ctr(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned int argc, char **argv)
> >>>>           rs->md.ro = 1;
> >>>>           rs->md.in_sync = 1;
> >>>>
> >>>> -       /* Keep array frozen until resume. */
> >>>> -       set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, &rs->md.recovery);
> >>>> -
> >>>>           /* Has to be held on running the array */
> >>>>           mddev_suspend_and_lock_nointr(&rs->md);
> >>>> +
> >>>> +       /* Keep array frozen until resume. */
> >>>> +       md_frozen_sync_thread(&rs->md);
> >>>> +
> >>>>           r = md_run(&rs->md);
> >>>>           rs->md.in_sync = 0; /* Assume already marked dirty */
> >>>>           if (r) {
> >>>> @@ -3722,6 +3723,9 @@ static int raid_message(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned int argc, char **argv,
> >>>>           if (!mddev->pers || !mddev->pers->sync_request)
> >>>>                   return -EINVAL;
> >>>>
> >>>> +       if (test_bit(RT_FLAG_RS_SUSPENDED, &rs->runtime_flags))
> >>>> +               return -EBUSY;
> >>>> +
> >>>>           if (!strcasecmp(argv[0], "frozen"))
> >>>>                   set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, &mddev->recovery);
> >>>>           else
> >>>> @@ -3791,15 +3795,31 @@ static void raid_io_hints(struct dm_target *ti, struct queue_limits *limits)
> >>>>           blk_limits_io_opt(limits, chunk_size_bytes * mddev_data_stripes(rs));
> >>>>    }
> >>>>
> >>>> +static void raid_presuspend(struct dm_target *ti)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +       struct raid_set *rs = ti->private;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +       mddev_lock_nointr(&rs->md);
> >>>> +       md_frozen_sync_thread(&rs->md);
> >>>> +       mddev_unlock(&rs->md);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>> +static void raid_presuspend_undo(struct dm_target *ti)
> >>>> +{
> >>>> +       struct raid_set *rs = ti->private;
> >>>> +
> >>>> +       mddev_lock_nointr(&rs->md);
> >>>> +       md_unfrozen_sync_thread(&rs->md);
> >>>> +       mddev_unlock(&rs->md);
> >>>> +}
> >>>> +
> >>>>    static void raid_postsuspend(struct dm_target *ti)
> >>>>    {
> >>>>           struct raid_set *rs = ti->private;
> >>>>
> >>>>           if (!test_and_set_bit(RT_FLAG_RS_SUSPENDED, &rs->runtime_flags)) {
> >>>>                   /* Writes have to be stopped before suspending to avoid deadlocks. */
> >>>> -               if (!test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, &rs->md.recovery))
> >>>> -                       md_stop_writes(&rs->md);
> >>>> -
> >>>> +               md_stop_writes(&rs->md);
> >>>>                   mddev_suspend(&rs->md, false);
> >>>>           }
> >>>>    }
> >>>> @@ -4012,8 +4032,6 @@ static int raid_preresume(struct dm_target *ti)
> >>>>           }
> >>>>
> >>>>           /* Check for any resize/reshape on @rs and adjust/initiate */
> >>>> -       /* Be prepared for mddev_resume() in raid_resume() */
> >>>> -       set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, &mddev->recovery);
> >>>>           if (mddev->recovery_cp && mddev->recovery_cp < MaxSector) {
> >>>>                   set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_REQUESTED, &mddev->recovery);
> >>>>                   mddev->resync_min = mddev->recovery_cp;
> >>>> @@ -4056,9 +4074,9 @@ static void raid_resume(struct dm_target *ti)
> >>>>                           rs_set_capacity(rs);
> >>>>
> >>>>                   mddev_lock_nointr(mddev);
> >>>> -               clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_FROZEN, &mddev->recovery);
> >>>>                   mddev->ro = 0;
> >>>>                   mddev->in_sync = 0;
> >>>> +               md_unfrozen_sync_thread(mddev);
> >>>>                   mddev_unlock_and_resume(mddev);
> >>>>           }
> >>>>    }
> >>>> @@ -4074,6 +4092,8 @@ static struct target_type raid_target = {
> >>>>           .message = raid_message,
> >>>>           .iterate_devices = raid_iterate_devices,
> >>>>           .io_hints = raid_io_hints,
> >>>> +       .presuspend = raid_presuspend,
> >>>> +       .presuspend_undo = raid_presuspend_undo,
> >>>>           .postsuspend = raid_postsuspend,
> >>>>           .preresume = raid_preresume,
> >>>>           .resume = raid_resume,
> >>>> --
> >>>> 2.39.2
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> .
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> > .
> >
>

Powered by blists - more mailing lists