在 2023/5/29 下午9:20, Yu Kuai 写道:
From: Yu Kuai <yuku...@huawei.com>

This reverts commit 9dfbdafda3b34e262e43e786077bab8e476a89d1.

Because it will introduce a defect that sync_thread can be running while
MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is cleared, which will cause some unexpected problems,
for example:

list_add corruption. prev->next should be next (ffff0001ac1daba0), but was 
ffff0000ce1a02a0. (prev=ffff0000ce1a02a0).
Call trace:
  __list_add_valid+0xfc/0x140
  insert_work+0x78/0x1a0
  __queue_work+0x500/0xcf4
  queue_work_on+0xe8/0x12c
  md_check_recovery+0xa34/0xf30
  raid10d+0xb8/0x900 [raid10]
  md_thread+0x16c/0x2cc
  kthread+0x1a4/0x1ec
  ret_from_fork+0x10/0x18

This is because work is requeued while it's still inside workqueue:

t1:                     t2:
action_store
  mddev_lock
   if (mddev->sync_thread)
    mddev_unlock
    md_unregister_thread
    // first sync_thread is done
                        md_check_recovery
                         mddev_try_lock
                         /*
                          * once MD_RECOVERY_DONE is set, new sync_thread
                          * can start.
                          */
                         set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &mddev->recovery)
                         INIT_WORK(&mddev->del_work, md_start_sync)
                         queue_work(md_misc_wq, &mddev->del_work)
                          test_and_set_bit(WORK_STRUCT_PENDING_BIT, ...)
                          // set pending bit
                          insert_work
                           list_add_tail
                         mddev_unlock
    mddev_lock_nointr
    md_reap_sync_thread
    // MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is cleared
  mddev_unlock

t3:

// before queued work started from t2
md_check_recovery
  // MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is not set, a new sync_thread can be started
  INIT_WORK(&mddev->del_work, md_start_sync)
   work->data = 0
   // work pending bit is cleared
  queue_work(md_misc_wq, &mddev->del_work)
   insert_work
    list_add_tail
    // list is corrupted

The above commit is reverted to fix the problem, the deadlock this
commit tries to fix will be fixed in following patches.

Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yuku...@huawei.com>
---
  drivers/md/dm-raid.c |  1 -
  drivers/md/md.c      | 19 ++-----------------
  2 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)

diff --git a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
index 8846bf510a35..1f22bef27841 100644
--- a/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
+++ b/drivers/md/dm-raid.c
@@ -3725,7 +3725,6 @@ static int raid_message(struct dm_target *ti, unsigned 
int argc, char **argv,
        if (!strcasecmp(argv[0], "idle") || !strcasecmp(argv[0], "frozen")) {
                if (mddev->sync_thread) {
                        set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
-                       md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread);
                        md_reap_sync_thread(mddev);
                }
        } else if (decipher_sync_action(mddev, mddev->recovery) != st_idle)
diff --git a/drivers/md/md.c b/drivers/md/md.c
index a5a7af2f4e59..9b97731e1fe4 100644
--- a/drivers/md/md.c
+++ b/drivers/md/md.c
@@ -4772,19 +4772,6 @@ action_store(struct mddev *mddev, const char *page, 
size_t len)
                        if (work_pending(&mddev->del_work))
                                flush_workqueue(md_misc_wq);
                        if (mddev->sync_thread) {
-                               sector_t save_rp = mddev->reshape_position;
-
-                               mddev_unlock(mddev);
-                               set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
-                               md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread);
-                               mddev_lock_nointr(mddev);
-                               /*
-                                * set RECOVERY_INTR again and restore reshape
-                                * position in case others changed them after
-                                * got lock, eg, reshape_position_store and
-                                * md_check_recovery.
-                                */
-                               mddev->reshape_position = save_rp;
                                set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
                                md_reap_sync_thread(mddev);
                        }
@@ -6184,7 +6171,6 @@ static void __md_stop_writes(struct mddev *mddev)
                flush_workqueue(md_misc_wq);
        if (mddev->sync_thread) {
                set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
-               md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread);
                md_reap_sync_thread(mddev);
        }
@@ -9336,7 +9322,6 @@ void md_check_recovery(struct mddev *mddev)
                         * ->spare_active and clear saved_raid_disk
                         */
                        set_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery);
-                       md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread);
                        md_reap_sync_thread(mddev);
                        clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RECOVER, &mddev->recovery);
                        clear_bit(MD_RECOVERY_NEEDED, &mddev->recovery);
@@ -9372,7 +9357,6 @@ void md_check_recovery(struct mddev *mddev)
                        goto unlock;
                }
                if (mddev->sync_thread) {
-                       md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread);
                        md_reap_sync_thread(mddev);
                        goto unlock;
                }
@@ -9452,7 +9436,8 @@ void md_reap_sync_thread(struct mddev *mddev)
        sector_t old_dev_sectors = mddev->dev_sectors;
        bool is_reshaped = false;
- /* sync_thread should be unregistered, collect result */
+       /* resync has finished, collect result */
+       md_unregister_thread(&mddev->sync_thread);
        if (!test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_INTR, &mddev->recovery) &&
            !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_REQUESTED, &mddev->recovery) &&
            mddev->degraded != mddev->raid_disks) {


Hi Kuai

Thanks for the patch and the explanation in V1. In version1, I took much time to try to understand the problem. Maybe we can use the problem

itself as the subject. Something like "Don't allow two sync processes running at the same time"? And could you add the test steps which talked in v1

in the patch? It can help to understand the problem very much.

Best Regards

Xiao

--
dm-devel mailing list
dm-devel@redhat.com
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel

Reply via email to