| Message ID | e935669f435882ba179812a955bcbb89d964db26.1642401849.git.naohiro.aota@wdc.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | New, archived |
| Headers | show |
| Series | btrfs: zoned: mark relocation as writing | expand |
OK as somehow Thunderbird is broken for me, let’s see if Outlook works:
Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <johannes.thumshirn@wdc.com>
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 03:56:52PM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote: > There is a hung_task issue with running generic/068 on an SMR > device. The hang occurs while a process is trying to thaw the > filesystem. The process is trying to take sb->s_umount to thaw the > FS. The lock is held by fsstress, which calls btrfs_sync_fs() and is > waiting for an ordered extent to finish. However, as the FS is frozen, > the ordered extent never finish. > > Having an ordered extent while the FS is frozen is the root cause of > the hang. The ordered extent is initiated from btrfs_relocate_chunk() > which is called from btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(). > > This commit add sb_*_write() around btrfs_relocate_chunk() call > site. For the usual "btrfs balance" command, we already call it with > mnt_want_file() in btrfs_ioctl_balance(). > > Additionally, add an ASSERT in btrfs_relocate_chunk() to check it is > properly called. > > Fixes: 18bb8bbf13c1 ("btrfs: zoned: automatically reclaim zones") > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.13+ > Link: https://github.com/naota/linux/issues/56 > Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com> > --- > fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 3 +++ > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 5 +++++ > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > index 68feabc83a27..913fee0daafd 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > @@ -1516,11 +1516,13 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work) > if (!btrfs_exclop_start(fs_info, BTRFS_EXCLOP_BALANCE)) > return; > > + sb_start_write(fs_info->sb); > /* > * Long running balances can keep us blocked here for eternity, so > * simply skip reclaim if we're unable to get the mutex. > */ > if (!mutex_trylock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock)) { > + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); Should this be some sort of try lock as well? IIRC sb_start_write can block, so this would block the whole thread. > btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); > return; > } > @@ -1595,6 +1597,7 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work) > } > spin_unlock(&fs_info->unused_bgs_lock); > mutex_unlock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); > + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); > btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); > } > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > index b07d382d53a8..3975511f3201 100644 > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > @@ -3251,6 +3251,9 @@ int btrfs_relocate_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset) > u64 length; > int ret; > > + /* Assert we called sb_start_write(), not to race with FS freezing */ > + lockdep_assert_held_read(fs_info->sb->s_writers.rw_sem + SB_FREEZE_WRITE - 1); This seems to be peeking into the internals and I can't say if this is a good idea or not, some wrappe would make more sense. > + > /* > * Prevent races with automatic removal of unused block groups. > * After we relocate and before we remove the chunk with offset > @@ -8306,6 +8309,7 @@ static int relocating_repair_kthread(void *data) > return -EBUSY; > } > > + sb_start_write(fs_info->sb); I was wondering if the trylock semantics should be here as well but proably not, because the next lock is a big one too. > mutex_lock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); > > /* Ensure block group still exists */ > @@ -8329,6 +8333,7 @@ static int relocating_repair_kthread(void *data) > if (cache) > btrfs_put_block_group(cache); > mutex_unlock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); > + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); > btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); > > return ret; > -- > 2.34.1
On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 03:40:14PM +0100, David Sterba wrote: > On Mon, Jan 17, 2022 at 03:56:52PM +0900, Naohiro Aota wrote: > > There is a hung_task issue with running generic/068 on an SMR > > device. The hang occurs while a process is trying to thaw the > > filesystem. The process is trying to take sb->s_umount to thaw the > > FS. The lock is held by fsstress, which calls btrfs_sync_fs() and is > > waiting for an ordered extent to finish. However, as the FS is frozen, > > the ordered extent never finish. > > > > Having an ordered extent while the FS is frozen is the root cause of > > the hang. The ordered extent is initiated from btrfs_relocate_chunk() > > which is called from btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(). > > > > This commit add sb_*_write() around btrfs_relocate_chunk() call > > site. For the usual "btrfs balance" command, we already call it with > > mnt_want_file() in btrfs_ioctl_balance(). > > > > Additionally, add an ASSERT in btrfs_relocate_chunk() to check it is > > properly called. > > > > Fixes: 18bb8bbf13c1 ("btrfs: zoned: automatically reclaim zones") > > Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.13+ > > Link: https://github.com/naota/linux/issues/56 > > Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com> > > --- > > fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 3 +++ > > fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 5 +++++ > > 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > > index 68feabc83a27..913fee0daafd 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c > > @@ -1516,11 +1516,13 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work) > > if (!btrfs_exclop_start(fs_info, BTRFS_EXCLOP_BALANCE)) > > return; > > > > + sb_start_write(fs_info->sb); > > /* > > * Long running balances can keep us blocked here for eternity, so > > * simply skip reclaim if we're unable to get the mutex. > > */ > > if (!mutex_trylock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock)) { > > + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); > > Should this be some sort of try lock as well? IIRC sb_start_write can > block, so this would block the whole thread. Contrary to the word "write," sb_start_write() takes a read lock. And, the write side is only taken by the FS freeze path. So, I don't think it's necessary to make it try locking. I just noticed sb_start_write() should come before btrfs_exclop_balance(), so that it has the same order as in btrfs_ioctl_balance(). Will fix that. > > btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); > > return; > > } > > @@ -1595,6 +1597,7 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work) > > } > > spin_unlock(&fs_info->unused_bgs_lock); > > mutex_unlock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); > > + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); > > btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); > > } > > > > diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > > index b07d382d53a8..3975511f3201 100644 > > --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > > +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c > > @@ -3251,6 +3251,9 @@ int btrfs_relocate_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset) > > u64 length; > > int ret; > > > > + /* Assert we called sb_start_write(), not to race with FS freezing */ > > + lockdep_assert_held_read(fs_info->sb->s_writers.rw_sem + SB_FREEZE_WRITE - 1); > > This seems to be peeking into the internals and I can't say if this is > a good idea or not, some wrappe would make more sense. I agree. I'll make a common wrapper in the next version. > > + > > /* > > * Prevent races with automatic removal of unused block groups. > > * After we relocate and before we remove the chunk with offset > > @@ -8306,6 +8309,7 @@ static int relocating_repair_kthread(void *data) > > return -EBUSY; > > } > > > > + sb_start_write(fs_info->sb); > > I was wondering if the trylock semantics should be here as well but > proably not, because the next lock is a big one too. I think this can be intact as shown as above. > > mutex_lock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); > > > > /* Ensure block group still exists */ > > @@ -8329,6 +8333,7 @@ static int relocating_repair_kthread(void *data) > > if (cache) > > btrfs_put_block_group(cache); > > mutex_unlock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); > > + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); > > btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); > > > > return ret; > > -- > > 2.34.1
diff --git a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c index 68feabc83a27..913fee0daafd 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/block-group.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/block-group.c @@ -1516,11 +1516,13 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work) if (!btrfs_exclop_start(fs_info, BTRFS_EXCLOP_BALANCE)) return; + sb_start_write(fs_info->sb); /* * Long running balances can keep us blocked here for eternity, so * simply skip reclaim if we're unable to get the mutex. */ if (!mutex_trylock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock)) { + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); return; } @@ -1595,6 +1597,7 @@ void btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(struct work_struct *work) } spin_unlock(&fs_info->unused_bgs_lock); mutex_unlock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); } diff --git a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c index b07d382d53a8..3975511f3201 100644 --- a/fs/btrfs/volumes.c +++ b/fs/btrfs/volumes.c @@ -3251,6 +3251,9 @@ int btrfs_relocate_chunk(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info, u64 chunk_offset) u64 length; int ret; + /* Assert we called sb_start_write(), not to race with FS freezing */ + lockdep_assert_held_read(fs_info->sb->s_writers.rw_sem + SB_FREEZE_WRITE - 1); + /* * Prevent races with automatic removal of unused block groups. * After we relocate and before we remove the chunk with offset @@ -8306,6 +8309,7 @@ static int relocating_repair_kthread(void *data) return -EBUSY; } + sb_start_write(fs_info->sb); mutex_lock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); /* Ensure block group still exists */ @@ -8329,6 +8333,7 @@ static int relocating_repair_kthread(void *data) if (cache) btrfs_put_block_group(cache); mutex_unlock(&fs_info->reclaim_bgs_lock); + sb_end_write(fs_info->sb); btrfs_exclop_finish(fs_info); return ret;
There is a hung_task issue with running generic/068 on an SMR device. The hang occurs while a process is trying to thaw the filesystem. The process is trying to take sb->s_umount to thaw the FS. The lock is held by fsstress, which calls btrfs_sync_fs() and is waiting for an ordered extent to finish. However, as the FS is frozen, the ordered extent never finish. Having an ordered extent while the FS is frozen is the root cause of the hang. The ordered extent is initiated from btrfs_relocate_chunk() which is called from btrfs_reclaim_bgs_work(). This commit add sb_*_write() around btrfs_relocate_chunk() call site. For the usual "btrfs balance" command, we already call it with mnt_want_file() in btrfs_ioctl_balance(). Additionally, add an ASSERT in btrfs_relocate_chunk() to check it is properly called. Fixes: 18bb8bbf13c1 ("btrfs: zoned: automatically reclaim zones") Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org # 5.13+ Link: https://github.com/naota/linux/issues/56 Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <naohiro.aota@wdc.com> --- fs/btrfs/block-group.c | 3 +++ fs/btrfs/volumes.c | 5 +++++ 2 files changed, 8 insertions(+)