From: Toshiyuki Okajima Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Re: [BUG] ext4: cannot unfreeze a filesystem due to a deadlock Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 19:25:44 +0900 Message-ID: <4D9AEE28.4000003@jp.fujitsu.com> References: <20110207205325.FB6A.61FB500B@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110215160630.GH17313@quack.suse.cz> <20110215170352.GE4255@thunk.org> <20110215172954.GK17313@quack.suse.cz> <20110216081746.54d146d1.toshi.okajima@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110216145627.GB5592@quack.suse.cz> <4D5C9B1B.2050304@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110217104552.GD4947@quack.suse.cz> <20110328170628.ffe314fb.toshi.okajima@jp.fujitsu.com> <20110330141205.GC22349@quack.suse.cz> <4D946DAB.3010107@jp.fujitsu.com> Reply-To: toshi.okajima@jp.fujitsu.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Ted Ts'o , Masayoshi MIZUMA , Andreas Dilger , linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, sandeen@redhat.com To: Jan Kara Return-path: Received: from fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp ([192.51.44.36]:46487 "EHLO fgwmail6.fujitsu.co.jp" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752596Ab1DEKYN (ORCPT ); Tue, 5 Apr 2011 06:24:13 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4D946DAB.3010107@jp.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Hi. (2011/03/31 21:03), Toshiyuki Okajima wrote: > Hi, thanks for your reviewing. > > (2011/03/30 23:12), Jan Kara wrote: >> Hello, >> >> On Mon 28-03-11 17:06:28, Toshiyuki Okajima wrote: >>> On Thu, 17 Feb 2011 11:45:52 +0100 >>> Jan Kara wrote: >>>> On Thu 17-02-11 12:50:51, Toshiyuki Okajima wrote: >>>>> (2011/02/16 23:56), Jan Kara wrote: >>>>>> On Wed 16-02-11 08:17:46, Toshiyuki Okajima wrote: >>>>>>> On Tue, 15 Feb 2011 18:29:54 +0100 >>>>>>> Jan Kara wrote: >>>>>>>> On Tue 15-02-11 12:03:52, Ted Ts'o wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 15, 2011 at 05:06:30PM +0100, Jan Kara wrote: > >>> I have deeply continued to examined the root cause of this problem, then >>> I found it. >>> >>> It is that we can write a memory which is mmaped to a file. Then the memory >>> becomes "DIRTY" so then the flusher thread (ex. wb_do_writeback) tries to >>> "writeback" the memory. >>> >>> Therefore, the root cause of this hangup is not only ext4 component (with >>> delayed allocation feature) but also writeback mechanism for mmap. If you >>> use the other filesystem, you can write something to the filesystem though >>> you have freezed the filesystem. > >> Well, you can write something only in the caches, not to the on disk >> image. So it's not a problem as such. > My reproducer uses the loopback device(/dev/loopX). By using it, I have confirmed that > we can write in not only the caches but also the loopback device. However, > I don't still confirm that we can write to the real device(/dev/sdaX). > >> >>> A sample problem is attached on this mail. Try to execute it then you can >>> confirm that we can write some data to your filesystem while freezing the >>> filesystem. >>> (If you change FS variable in go.sh from ext3 to ext4 and you execute >>> "fsfreeze -u mnt" manually on other prompt, you can also confirm this deadlock.) >>> >>> I think the best approach to fix this problem is to let users not to write >>> memory which is mapped to a certain file while the filesystem is freezing. >>> However, it is very difficult to control users not to write memory which has >>> been already mapped to the file. >> It is actually possible. In case of ext4, you could add a check (+ wait) >> in ext4_page_mkwrite() whether the filesystem is frozen or in the process >> of being frozen and if so, wait for it to get unfrozen. The only tough >> problem here might be the locking as ext4_page_mkwrite() is called with >> mmap_sem held and I'm not sure we can take s_umount with mmap_sem held. >> But you'd have to fix all filesystems (and all paths possibly creating >> dirty data) in this way. >> > >>> Therefore, I think there is only actual method that we stop writeback thread >>> to resolve the mmap problem. Also, by this fix, the original problem >>> (ext4 delayed write vs unfreeze) can be solved. >> Hmm, I had a look at the code again and think we could fix the issue >> cleanly (i.e. all possible users of s_umount) as follows: The lock >> ordering will be >> s_umount -> "fs frozen" >> and there will be a new mutex s_freeze_mutex protecting changes of >> s_frozen. >> >> freeze_bdev() already observes this lock ordering, it will only take >> s_freeze_mutex for the changes of s_frozen values. The only other code >> that is relevant for the lock ordering is thaw_super() (the freezing >> process is not expected to reenter kernel for the frozen filesystem). >> In thaw_super() we could take s_freeze_mutex, do all the thawing work, >> set s_frozen, release s_freeze_mutex and put superblock reference. >> > >> So something like the patch below - it seems to work for me, can you test >> it please? > I think your patch looks good, so, the original problem seems to be solved. > OK, I will test your patch. > This weekend I cannot test it. So, I will reply next week. I have tested whether Mizuma-san's reproducer can cause to deadlock with your patch. And then any problems didn't hit while the reproducer was running. I think your patch solves the original deadlock problem which is reported by Mizuma-san. > Reported-by: Toshiyuki Okajima > Signed-off-by: Jan Kara > --- > fs/super.c | 40 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > include/linux/fs.h | 1 + > 2 files changed, 35 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) However, I think a write which causes the deadlock is from mmapped dirty pages. So, I guess we also need to fix in the mmap path while fsfreezing. > I floated > > [PATCH, RFC] check for frozen filesystems in the mmap path > > a long time ago, but it went nowhere; maybe time to revive that approach. Thanks, Toshiyuki Okajima