Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/6] Revert "md: unlock mddev before reap
 sync_thread in action_store"
To:     Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>,
        Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>, logang@deltatee.com,
        pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org,
        song@kernel.org
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-raid@vger.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@huawei.com, yangerkun@huawei.com,
        Marc Smith <msmith626@gmail.com>,
        "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@huawei.com>
References: <20230322064122.2384589-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <20230322064122.2384589-2-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
 <2c2599ec-ac35-6494-aedf-93ecca1969ee@linux.dev>
 <d1d27b2a-96ec-319e-4690-64e781c9a473@huaweicloud.com>
 <b91ae03a-14d5-11eb-8ec7-3ed91ff2c59e@linux.dev>
 <31e7f59e-579a-7812-632d-059ed0a6d441@huaweicloud.com>
 <3fc2a539-e4cc-e057-6cf0-da7b3953be6e@linux.dev>
From:   Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Message-ID: <3aa073e9-5145-aae2-2201-5ba48c09c693@huaweicloud.com>
Date:   Thu, 23 Mar 2023 14:32:50 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3fc2a539-e4cc-e057-6cf0-da7b3953be6e@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

在 2023/03/23 11:50, Guoqing Jiang 写道:

> Combined your debug patch with above steps. Seems you are
> 
> 1. add delay to action_store, so it can't get lock in time.
> 2. echo "want_replacement"**triggers md_check_recovery which can grab lock
>      to start sync thread.
> 3. action_store finally hold lock to clear RECOVERY_RUNNING in reap sync 
> thread.
> 4. Then the new added BUG_ON is invoked since RECOVERY_RUNNING is cleared
>      in step 3.

Yes, this is exactly what I did.

> sync_thread can be interrupted once MD_RECOVERY_INTR is set which means 
> the RUNNING
> can be cleared, so I am not sure the added BUG_ON is reasonable. And 
> change BUG_ON

I think BUG_ON() is reasonable because only md_reap_sync_thread can
clear it, md_do_sync will exit quictly if MD_RECOVERY_INTR is set, but
md_do_sync should not see that MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is cleared, otherwise
there is no gurantee that only one sync_thread can be in progress.

> like this makes more sense to me.
> 
> +BUG_ON(!test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &mddev->recovery) &&
> +!test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery));

I think this can be reporduced likewise, md_check_recovery clear
MD_RECOVERY_INTR, and new sync_thread triggered by echo
"want_replacement" won't set this bit.

> 
> I think there might be racy window like you described but it should be 
> really small, I prefer
> to just add a few lines like this instead of revert and introduce new 
> lock to resolve the same
> issue (if it is).

The new lock that I add in this patchset is just try to synchronize idle
and forzen from action_store（patch 3), I can drop it if you think this
is not necessary.

The main changes is patch 4, new lines is not much and I really don't
like to add new flags unless we have to, current code is already hard
to understand...

By the way, I'm concerned that drop the mutex to unregister sync_thread
might not be safe, since the mutex protects lots of stuff, and there
might exist other implicit dependencies.

> 
> TBH, I am reluctant to see the changes in the series, it can only be 
> considered
> acceptable with conditions:
> 
> 1. the previous raid456 bug can be fixed in this way too, hopefully Marc 
> or others
>      can verify it.
> 2. pass all the tests in mdadm

I already test this patchset with mdadm, If there are reporducer for
raid456 bug, I can try to verify it myself.

Thanks,
Kuai
> 
> Thanks,
> Guoqing
> .
>