Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Wed, 11 Nov 2020 21:31:22 -0800
From:   Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
To:     Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, kernel-team@android.com,
        Light Hsieh <Light.Hsieh@mediatek.com>
Subject: Re: [f2fs-dev] [PATCH] f2fs: avoid race condition for shinker count
Message-ID: <20201112053122.GA3826485@google.com>
References: <20201109170012.2129411-1-jaegeuk@kernel.org>
 <f195a4f0-34af-1594-f443-be8ba3058707@huawei.com>
 <20201110041958.GA1598246@google.com>
 <f8de28c2-da2f-f988-7fc9-6f38f19f3f41@huawei.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <f8de28c2-da2f-f988-7fc9-6f38f19f3f41@huawei.com>
Precedence: bulk

On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> On 2020/11/10 12:19, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > On 11/10, Chao Yu wrote:
> > > On 2020/11/10 1:00, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> > > > Light reported sometimes shinker gets nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt resulting in
> > > 
> > > I didn't get the problem clearly, did you mean __count_nat_entries() will
> > > give the wrong shrink count due to race condition? should there be a lock
> > > while reading these two variables?
> > > 
> > > > wrong do_shinker work. Basically the two counts should not happen like that.
> > > > 
> > > > So, I suspect this race condtion where:
> > > > - f2fs_try_to_free_nats            __flush_nat_entry_set
> > > >    nat_cnt=2, dirty_nat_cnt=2
> > > >                                      __clear_nat_cache_dirty
> > > >                                       spin_lock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >                                       list_move()
> > > >                                       spin_unlock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    spin_lock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    list_del()
> > > >    spin_unlock(nat_list_lock)
> > > >    nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=2
> > > >                                      nat_cnt=1, dirty_nat_cnt=1
> > > 
> > > nm_i->nat_cnt and nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt were protected by
> > > nm_i->nat_tree_lock, I didn't see why expanding nat_list_lock range
> > > will help... since there are still places nat_list_lock() didn't
> > > cover these two reference counts.
> > 
> > Yeah, I missed nat_tree_lock, and indeed it should cover this. So, the problem
> > is Light reported subtle case of nat_cnt < dirty_nat_cnt in shrink_count.
> > We may need to use nat_tree_lock in shrink_count?
> 
> change like this?
> 

Yup.

> __count_nat_entries()
> 
> 	down_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> 	count = NM_I(sbi)->nat_cnt - NM_I(sbi)->dirty_nat_cnt;
> 	up_read(&nm_i->nat_tree_lock);
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Reported-by: Light Hsieh <Light.Hsieh@mediatek.com>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
> > > > ---
> > > >    fs/f2fs/node.c | 3 +--
> > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/fs/f2fs/node.c b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > index 42394de6c7eb..e8ec65e40f06 100644
> > > > --- a/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > +++ b/fs/f2fs/node.c
> > > > @@ -269,11 +269,10 @@ static void __clear_nat_cache_dirty(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i,
> > > >    {
> > > >    	spin_lock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > >    	list_move_tail(&ne->list, &nm_i->nat_entries);
> > > > -	spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > > -
> > > >    	set_nat_flag(ne, IS_DIRTY, false);
> > > >    	set->entry_cnt--;
> > > >    	nm_i->dirty_nat_cnt--;
> > > > +	spin_unlock(&nm_i->nat_list_lock);
> > > >    }
> > > >    static unsigned int __gang_lookup_nat_set(struct f2fs_nm_info *nm_i,
> > > > 
> > .
> >