Hello,
From: Kostik Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:57:53 +0300
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 03:02:44PM +0200, Attilio Rao wrote:
>> 2011/7/12 Kostik Belousov <kostik...@gmail.com>:
>> > On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 07:10:28PM +0900, Kohji Okuno wrote:
>> >> Hello,
>> >>
>> >> I think that devfs has a problem.
>> >> I encountered the problem that open("/dev/AAA") returned ENOENT.
>> >> Of course, /dev/AAA exists.
>> >>
>> >> ENOENT was created by the point(***) in devfs_allocv().
>> >> I think that the race condition had occurred between process A and
>> >> vnlru kernel thread.
>> >>
>> >> Please check the following.
>> >>
>> >> If vnlru set VI_DOOMED to vp->v_iflag but vnlru didn't still execute
>> >> VOP_RECLAIM(), process A cat get valid vp from de->de_vnode.
>> >> But, vget() will return ENOENT, because vp->v_iflag has VI_DOOMED.
>> >>
>> >> When I set the break point to (***), I checked that de->de_vnode and
>> >> vp->v_data were NULL.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> process A: vnlru:
>> >>
>> >> devfs_allocv() {
>> >> vgonel(vp) {
>> >> ... ...
>> >> vp->v_iflag |= VI_DOOMED;
>> >> mtx_lock(&devfs_de_interlock); ...
>> >> vp = de->de_vnode;
>> >> if (vp != NULL) { VI_UNLOCK(vp);
>> >> _____________/ ...
>> >> VI_LOCK(vp); ____________/ if (VOP_RECLAIM(vp, td))
>> >> mtx_unlock(&devfs_de_interlock); ...
>> >> ... \ devfs_reclaim(ap) {
>> >> error = vget(vp,...); \
>> >> ... \______
>> >> mtx_lock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>> >> if (devfs_allocv_drop_refs(...)) { de = vp->v_data;
>> >> ... if (de != NULL) {
>> >> } de->de_vnode = NULL;
>> >> else if (error) { vp->v_data = NULL;
>> >> ... }
>> >> rturn (error); (***) mtx_unlock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>> >> } ...
>> >> }
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I think that devfs_allocv() should be fixed as below.
>> >> How do you think?
>> >>
>> >> devfs_allocv(struct devfs_dirent *de, struct mount *mp, struct vnode
>> >> **vpp)
>> >> {
>> >> int error;
>> >> struct vnode *vp;
>> >> struct cdev *dev;
>> >> struct devfs_mount *dmp;
>> >>
>> >> dmp = VFSTODEVFS(mp);
>> >> +#if 1
>> >> + retry:
>> >> +#endif
>> >> if (de->de_flags & DE_DOOMED) {
>> >>
>> >> ...
>> >>
>> >> mtx_lock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>> >> vp = de->de_vnode;
>> >> if (vp != NULL) {
>> >> VI_LOCK(vp);
>> >> mtx_unlock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>> >> sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
>> >> error = vget(vp, LK_EXCLUSIVE | LK_INTERLOCK, curthread);
>> >> sx_xlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
>> >> if (devfs_allocv_drop_refs(0, dmp, de)) {
>> >> if (error == 0)
>> >> vput(vp);
>> >> return (ENOENT);
>> >> }
>> >> else if (error) {
>> >> +#if 1
>> >> + if (error == ENOENT)
>> >> + goto retry;
>> >> +#endif
>> >> sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
>> >> return (error);
>> >> }
>> >>
>> > Thank you for the report.
>> >
>> > The proposed change would revert r179247, which also caused some issues.
>> > Are you able to reproduce the problem ?
>> >
>> > Could you try the following patch ? I cannot reproduce your situation,
>> > so the patch is untested by me.
>> >
>> > diff --git a/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c b/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c
>> > index bf6dab8..bbbfff4 100644
>> > --- a/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c
>> > +++ b/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c
>> > @@ -397,6 +397,7 @@ devfs_allocv(struct devfs_dirent *de, struct mount
>> > *mp, int lockmode,
>> > sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
>> > return (ENOENT);
>> > }
>> > +loop:
>> > DEVFS_DE_HOLD(de);
>> > DEVFS_DMP_HOLD(dmp);
>> > mtx_lock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>> > @@ -412,7 +413,16 @@ devfs_allocv(struct devfs_dirent *de, struct mount
>> > *mp, int lockmode,
>> > vput(vp);
>> > return (ENOENT);
>> > }
>> > - else if (error) {
>> > + else if (error != 0) {
>> > + if (error == ENOENT) {
>> > + mtx_lock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>> > + while (de->de_vnode != NULL) {
>> > + msleep(&de->de_vnode,
>> > + &devfs_de_interlock, 0,
>> > "dvall", 0);
>> > + }
>> > + mtx_unlock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>> > + goto loop;
>> > + }
>> > sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
>> > return (error);
>> > }
>> > @@ -1259,6 +1269,7 @@ devfs_reclaim(struct vop_reclaim_args *ap)
>> > if (de != NULL) {
>> > de->de_vnode = NULL;
>> > vp->v_data = NULL;
>> > + wakeup(&de->de_vnode);
>> > }
>> > mtx_unlock(&devfs_de_interlock);
>>
>> I think that this approach may starve the thread for a while.
>> As I told you privately I was able to see on field a livelock because
>> of this check. In my case, it was a thread running for 63seconds (at
>> least, at that point the watchdog was tripping over).
> Feasible explanation was not found at the time, AFAIR. I could believe
> that this is possible with r179247 and driver stuck in the close cdevsw
> method.
>
> More risky change would be to clear de_vnode early. All devfs code shall
> be already safe by checking for VI_DOOMED, and if VI_DOOMED, v_data may
> be NULL.
>
> Again, I am unable to test.
>
> diff --git a/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c b/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c
> index bf6dab8..955bd8b 100644
> --- a/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c
> +++ b/sys/fs/devfs/devfs_vnops.c
> @@ -397,6 +397,7 @@ devfs_allocv(struct devfs_dirent *de, struct mount *mp,
> int lockmode,
> sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
> return (ENOENT);
> }
> +loop:
> DEVFS_DE_HOLD(de);
> DEVFS_DMP_HOLD(dmp);
> mtx_lock(&devfs_de_interlock);
> @@ -405,16 +406,21 @@ devfs_allocv(struct devfs_dirent *de, struct mount *mp,
> int lockmode,
> VI_LOCK(vp);
> mtx_unlock(&devfs_de_interlock);
> sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
> - error = vget(vp, lockmode | LK_INTERLOCK, curthread);
> + vget(vp, lockmode | LK_INTERLOCK | LK_RETRY, curthread);
> sx_xlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
> if (devfs_allocv_drop_refs(0, dmp, de)) {
> - if (error == 0)
> - vput(vp);
> + vput(vp);
> return (ENOENT);
> }
> - else if (error) {
> - sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
> - return (error);
> + else if ((vp->v_iflag & VI_DOOMED) != 0) {
> + mtx_lock(&devfs_de_interlock);
> + if (de->de_vnode == vp) {
> + de->de_vnode = NULL;
> + vp->v_data = NULL;
> + }
> + mtx_unlock(&devfs_de_interlock);
> + vput(vp);
> + goto loop;
> }
> sx_xunlock(&dmp->dm_lock);
> *vpp = vp;
I tried Kostik's last patch, and I checked that open() successed twice
by retry. It is difficult for me to reproduce this situation.
At least, my problem is solved by this patch.
Thanks,
Kohji Okuno.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
