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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
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>
 <3aa073e9-5145-aae2-2201-5ba48c09c693@huaweicloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <3aa073e9-5145-aae2-2201-5ba48c09c693@huaweicloud.com>
From:   Song Liu <song@kernel.org>
Date:   Tue, 28 Mar 2023 16:58:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAPhsuW7c2b4yYbwNcqKW+TBL=QYEzchnVQ4pDLBT-xoBoTvQmg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 1/6] Revert "md: unlock mddev before reap
 sync_thread in action_store"
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com>
Cc:     Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@linux.dev>, logang@deltatee.com,
        pmenzel@molgen.mpg.de, agk@redhat.com, snitzer@kernel.org,
        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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Mar 22, 2023 at 11:32=E2=80=AFPM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@huaweicloud.com> =
wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> =E5=9C=A8 2023/03/23 11:50, Guoqing Jiang =E5=86=99=E9=81=93:
>
> > 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 l=
ock
> >      to start sync thread.
> > 3. action_store finally hold lock to clear RECOVERY_RUNNING in reap syn=
c
> > thread.
> > 4. Then the new added BUG_ON is invoked since RECOVERY_RUNNING is clear=
ed
> >      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=EF=BC=88patch 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 Mar=
c
> > or others
> >      can verify it.
> > 2. pass all the tests in mdadm

AFAICT, this set looks like a better solution for this problem. But I agree
that we need to make sure it fixes the original bug. mdadm tests are not
in a very good shape at the moment. I will spend more time to look into
these tests.

Thanks,
Song