diff options
author | Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com> | 2017-07-22 08:52:23 +0800 |
---|---|---|
committer | Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org> | 2017-07-31 16:47:27 -0700 |
commit | dc6febb6bcec7ff1b4a4d306411013b5f648f27e (patch) | |
tree | a0b22fadbd8c2e8332fc358b0b31f1c1fa26b073 /fs/f2fs/gc.c | |
parent | 7a10f0177e117e9935ee9e5c595fcf3c57215de5 (diff) | |
download | op-kernel-dev-dc6febb6bcec7ff1b4a4d306411013b5f648f27e.zip op-kernel-dev-dc6febb6bcec7ff1b4a4d306411013b5f648f27e.tar.gz |
f2fs: make background threads of f2fs being aware of freezing
When ->freeze_fs is called from lvm for doing snapshot, it needs to
make sure there will be no more changes in filesystem's data, however,
previously, background threads like GC thread wasn't aware of freezing,
so in environment with active background threads, data of snapshot
becomes unstable.
This patch fixes this issue by adding sb_{start,end}_intwrite in
below background threads:
- GC thread
- flush thread
- discard thread
Note that, don't use sb_start_intwrite() in gc_thread_func() due to:
generic/241 reports below bug:
======================================================
WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
4.13.0-rc1+ #32 Tainted: G O
------------------------------------------------------
f2fs_gc-250:0/22186 is trying to acquire lock:
(&sbi->gc_mutex){+.+...}, at: [<f8fa7f0b>] f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
but task is already holding lock:
(sb_internal#2){++++.-}, at: [<f8fb5609>] gc_thread_func+0x159/0x4a0 [f2fs]
which lock already depends on the new lock.
the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
-> #2 (sb_internal#2){++++.-}:
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
__sb_start_write+0x11d/0x1f0
f2fs_evict_inode+0x2d6/0x4e0 [f2fs]
evict+0xa8/0x170
iput+0x1fb/0x2c0
f2fs_sync_inode_meta+0x3f/0xf0 [f2fs]
write_checkpoint+0x1b1/0x750 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_fs+0x85/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_do_sync_file.isra.24+0x137/0xa30 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_file+0x34/0x40 [f2fs]
vfs_fsync_range+0x4a/0xa0
do_fsync+0x3c/0x60
SyS_fdatasync+0x15/0x20
do_fast_syscall_32+0xa1/0x1b0
entry_SYSENTER_32+0x4c/0x7b
-> #1 (&sbi->cp_mutex){+.+...}:
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
__mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
write_checkpoint+0x2f/0x750 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_fs+0x85/0x1b0 [f2fs]
sync_filesystem+0x67/0x80
generic_shutdown_super+0x27/0x100
kill_block_super+0x22/0x50
kill_f2fs_super+0x3a/0x40 [f2fs]
deactivate_locked_super+0x3d/0x70
deactivate_super+0x40/0x60
cleanup_mnt+0x39/0x70
__cleanup_mnt+0x10/0x20
task_work_run+0x69/0x80
exit_to_usermode_loop+0x57/0x92
do_fast_syscall_32+0x18c/0x1b0
entry_SYSENTER_32+0x4c/0x7b
-> #0 (&sbi->gc_mutex){+.+...}:
validate_chain.isra.36+0xc50/0xdb0
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
__mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_balance_fs_bg+0xb9/0x200 [f2fs]
gc_thread_func+0x302/0x4a0 [f2fs]
kthread+0xe9/0x120
ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
other info that might help us debug this:
Chain exists of:
&sbi->gc_mutex --> &sbi->cp_mutex --> sb_internal#2
Possible unsafe locking scenario:
CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
lock(sb_internal#2);
lock(&sbi->cp_mutex);
lock(sb_internal#2);
lock(&sbi->gc_mutex);
*** DEADLOCK ***
1 lock held by f2fs_gc-250:0/22186:
#0: (sb_internal#2){++++.-}, at: [<f8fb5609>] gc_thread_func+0x159/0x4a0 [f2fs]
stack backtrace:
CPU: 2 PID: 22186 Comm: f2fs_gc-250:0 Tainted: G O 4.13.0-rc1+ #32
Hardware name: innotek GmbH VirtualBox/VirtualBox, BIOS VirtualBox 12/01/2006
Call Trace:
dump_stack+0x5f/0x92
print_circular_bug+0x1b3/0x1bd
validate_chain.isra.36+0xc50/0xdb0
? __this_cpu_preempt_check+0xf/0x20
__lock_acquire+0x405/0x7b0
lock_acquire+0xae/0x220
? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
__mutex_lock+0x4f/0x830
? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
mutex_lock_nested+0x25/0x30
? f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_sync_fs+0x7b/0x1b0 [f2fs]
f2fs_balance_fs_bg+0xb9/0x200 [f2fs]
gc_thread_func+0x302/0x4a0 [f2fs]
? preempt_schedule_common+0x2f/0x4d
? f2fs_gc+0x540/0x540 [f2fs]
kthread+0xe9/0x120
? f2fs_gc+0x540/0x540 [f2fs]
? kthread_create_on_node+0x30/0x30
ret_from_fork+0x19/0x24
The deadlock occurs in below condition:
GC Thread Thread B
- sb_start_intwrite
- f2fs_sync_file
- f2fs_sync_fs
- mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex)
- write_checkpoint
- block_operations
- f2fs_sync_inode_meta
- iput
- sb_start_intwrite
- mutex_lock(&sbi->gc_mutex)
Fix this by altering sb_start_intwrite to sb_start_write_trylock.
Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuchao0@huawei.com>
Signed-off-by: Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>
Diffstat (limited to 'fs/f2fs/gc.c')
-rw-r--r-- | fs/f2fs/gc.c | 9 |
1 files changed, 7 insertions, 2 deletions
diff --git a/fs/f2fs/gc.c b/fs/f2fs/gc.c index fa3d2e2..41c649c 100644 --- a/fs/f2fs/gc.c +++ b/fs/f2fs/gc.c @@ -55,6 +55,9 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data) } #endif + if (!sb_start_write_trylock(sbi->sb)) + continue; + /* * [GC triggering condition] * 0. GC is not conducted currently. @@ -69,12 +72,12 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data) * So, I'd like to wait some time to collect dirty segments. */ if (!mutex_trylock(&sbi->gc_mutex)) - continue; + goto next; if (!is_idle(sbi)) { increase_sleep_time(gc_th, &wait_ms); mutex_unlock(&sbi->gc_mutex); - continue; + goto next; } if (has_enough_invalid_blocks(sbi)) @@ -93,6 +96,8 @@ static int gc_thread_func(void *data) /* balancing f2fs's metadata periodically */ f2fs_balance_fs_bg(sbi); +next: + sb_end_write(sbi->sb); } while (!kthread_should_stop()); return 0; |