by Matthew Wilcox

[permalink] [raw]

On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:17:30AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:19:45AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 11:52:52AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 07:44:59PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > On Wed 12-05-21 08:23:45, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > +->fallocate implementation must be really careful to maintain page cache
> > > > > > +consistency when punching holes or performing other operations that invalidate
> > > > > > +page cache contents. Usually the filesystem needs to call
> > > > > > +truncate_inode_pages_range() to invalidate relevant range of the page cache.
> > > > > > +However the filesystem usually also needs to update its internal (and on disk)
> > > > > > +view of file offset -> disk block mapping. Until this update is finished, the
> > > > > > +filesystem needs to block page faults and reads from reloading now-stale page
> > > > > > +cache contents from the disk. VFS provides mapping->invalidate_lock for this
> > > > > > +and acquires it in shared mode in paths loading pages from disk
> > > > > > +(filemap_fault(), filemap_read(), readahead paths). The filesystem is
> > > > > > +responsible for taking this lock in its fallocate implementation and generally
> > > > > > +whenever the page cache contents needs to be invalidated because a block is
> > > > > > +moving from under a page.
> > > > > > +
> > > > > > +->copy_file_range and ->remap_file_range implementations need to serialize
> > > > > > +against modifications of file data while the operation is running. For blocking
> > > > > > +changes through write(2) and similar operations inode->i_rwsem can be used. For
> > > > > > +blocking changes through memory mapping, the filesystem can use
> > > > > > +mapping->invalidate_lock provided it also acquires it in its ->page_mkwrite
> > > > > > +implementation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Question: What is the locking order when acquiring the invalidate_lock
> > > > > of two different files? Is it the same as i_rwsem (increasing order of
> > > > > the struct inode pointer) or is it the same as the XFS MMAPLOCK that is
> > > > > being hoisted here (increasing order of i_ino)?
> > > > >
> > > > > The reason I ask is that remap_file_range has to do that, but I don't
> > > > > see any conversions for the xfs_lock_two_inodes(..., MMAPLOCK_EXCL)
> > > > > calls in xfs_ilock2_io_mmap in this series.
> > > >
> > > > Good question. Technically, I don't think there's real need to establish a
> > > > single ordering because locks among different filesystems are never going
> > > > to be acquired together (effectively each lock type is local per sb and we
> > > > are free to define an ordering for each lock type differently). But to
> > > > maintain some sanity I guess having the same locking order for doublelock
> > > > of i_rwsem and invalidate_lock makes sense. Is there a reason why XFS uses
> > > > by-ino ordering? So that we don't have to consider two different orders in
> > > > xfs_lock_two_inodes()...
> > >
> > > I imagine Dave will chime in on this, but I suspect the reason is
> > > hysterical raisins^Wreasons.
> >
> > It's the locking rules that XFS has used pretty much forever.
> > Locking by inode number always guarantees the same locking order of
> > two inodes in the same filesystem, regardless of the specific
> > in-memory instances of the two inodes.
> >
> > e.g. if we lock based on the inode structure address, in one
> > instancex, we could get A -> B, then B gets recycled and
> > reallocated, then we get B -> A as the locking order for the same
> > two inodes.
> >
> > That, IMNSHO, is utterly crazy because with non-deterministic inode
> > lock ordered like this you can't make consistent locking rules for
> > locking the physical inode cluster buffers underlying the inodes in
> > the situation where they also need to be locked.
>
> <nod> That's protected by the ILOCK, correct?
>
> > We've been down this path before more than a decade ago when the
> > powers that be decreed that inode locking order is to be "by
> > structure address" rather than inode number, because "inode number
> > is not unique across multiple superblocks".
> >
> > I'm not sure that there is anywhere that locks multiple inodes
> > across different superblocks, but here we are again....
>
> Hm. Are there situations where one would want to lock multiple
> /mappings/ across different superblocks? The remapping code doesn't
> allow cross-super operations, so ... pipes and splice, maybe? I don't
> remember that code well enough to say for sure.

Hmmmm. Doing read IO into a buffer that is mmap()d from another
file, and we take a page fault on it inside the read IO path? We're
copying from a page in one mapping and taking a fault in another
mapping and hence taking the invalidate_lock to populate the page
cache for the second mapping...

I haven't looked closely enough at where the invalidate_lock is held
in the read path to determine if this is an issue, but if it is then
it is also a potential deadlock scenario...

Cheers,

Dave.
--
Dave Chinner
[email protected]

2021-05-19 19:27:59

by Jan Kara

[permalink] [raw]

Subject: Re: [PATCH 03/11] mm: Protect operations adding pages to page cache with invalidate_lock

On Wed 19-05-21 08:36:37, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:17:30AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > On Fri, May 14, 2021 at 09:19:45AM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 11:52:52AM -0700, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 07:44:59PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > On Wed 12-05-21 08:23:45, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
> > > > > > On Wed, May 12, 2021 at 03:46:11PM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > > > > > +->fallocate implementation must be really careful to maintain page cache
> > > > > > > +consistency when punching holes or performing other operations that invalidate
> > > > > > > +page cache contents. Usually the filesystem needs to call
> > > > > > > +truncate_inode_pages_range() to invalidate relevant range of the page cache.
> > > > > > > +However the filesystem usually also needs to update its internal (and on disk)
> > > > > > > +view of file offset -> disk block mapping. Until this update is finished, the
> > > > > > > +filesystem needs to block page faults and reads from reloading now-stale page
> > > > > > > +cache contents from the disk. VFS provides mapping->invalidate_lock for this
> > > > > > > +and acquires it in shared mode in paths loading pages from disk
> > > > > > > +(filemap_fault(), filemap_read(), readahead paths). The filesystem is
> > > > > > > +responsible for taking this lock in its fallocate implementation and generally
> > > > > > > +whenever the page cache contents needs to be invalidated because a block is
> > > > > > > +moving from under a page.
> > > > > > > +
> > > > > > > +->copy_file_range and ->remap_file_range implementations need to serialize
> > > > > > > +against modifications of file data while the operation is running. For blocking
> > > > > > > +changes through write(2) and similar operations inode->i_rwsem can be used. For
> > > > > > > +blocking changes through memory mapping, the filesystem can use
> > > > > > > +mapping->invalidate_lock provided it also acquires it in its ->page_mkwrite
> > > > > > > +implementation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Question: What is the locking order when acquiring the invalidate_lock
> > > > > > of two different files? Is it the same as i_rwsem (increasing order of
> > > > > > the struct inode pointer) or is it the same as the XFS MMAPLOCK that is
> > > > > > being hoisted here (increasing order of i_ino)?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The reason I ask is that remap_file_range has to do that, but I don't
> > > > > > see any conversions for the xfs_lock_two_inodes(..., MMAPLOCK_EXCL)
> > > > > > calls in xfs_ilock2_io_mmap in this series.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good question. Technically, I don't think there's real need to establish a
> > > > > single ordering because locks among different filesystems are never going
> > > > > to be acquired together (effectively each lock type is local per sb and we
> > > > > are free to define an ordering for each lock type differently). But to
> > > > > maintain some sanity I guess having the same locking order for doublelock
> > > > > of i_rwsem and invalidate_lock makes sense. Is there a reason why XFS uses
> > > > > by-ino ordering? So that we don't have to consider two different orders in
> > > > > xfs_lock_two_inodes()...
> > > >
> > > > I imagine Dave will chime in on this, but I suspect the reason is
> > > > hysterical raisins^Wreasons.
> > >
> > > It's the locking rules that XFS has used pretty much forever.
> > > Locking by inode number always guarantees the same locking order of
> > > two inodes in the same filesystem, regardless of the specific
> > > in-memory instances of the two inodes.
> > >
> > > e.g. if we lock based on the inode structure address, in one
> > > instancex, we could get A -> B, then B gets recycled and
> > > reallocated, then we get B -> A as the locking order for the same
> > > two inodes.
> > >
> > > That, IMNSHO, is utterly crazy because with non-deterministic inode
> > > lock ordered like this you can't make consistent locking rules for
> > > locking the physical inode cluster buffers underlying the inodes in
> > > the situation where they also need to be locked.
> >
> > <nod> That's protected by the ILOCK, correct?
> >
> > > We've been down this path before more than a decade ago when the
> > > powers that be decreed that inode locking order is to be "by
> > > structure address" rather than inode number, because "inode number
> > > is not unique across multiple superblocks".
> > >
> > > I'm not sure that there is anywhere that locks multiple inodes
> > > across different superblocks, but here we are again....
> >
> > Hm. Are there situations where one would want to lock multiple
> > /mappings/ across different superblocks? The remapping code doesn't
> > allow cross-super operations, so ... pipes and splice, maybe? I don't
> > remember that code well enough to say for sure.
>
> Hmmmm. Doing read IO into a buffer that is mmap()d from another
> file, and we take a page fault on it inside the read IO path? We're
> copying from a page in one mapping and taking a fault in another
> mapping and hence taking the invalidate_lock to populate the page
> cache for the second mapping...
>
> I haven't looked closely enough at where the invalidate_lock is held
> in the read path to determine if this is an issue, but if it is then
> it is also a potential deadlock scenario...

I was careful enough to avoid this problem - we first bring pages into
pages cache (under invalidate_lock), then drop invalidate lock, just
keep page refs, and copy page cache content into the buffer (which may grab
invalidate_lock from another mapping as you say).

Honza
--
Jan Kara <[email protected]>
SUSE Labs, CR