On 2018/7/30 9:38, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
> On 07/28, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>> On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>>> On 2018/7/29 10:59, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>> On 07/29, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>> On 2018/7/29 10:02, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>> On 07/27, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2018/7/27 18:29, Jaegeuk Kim wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 07/26, Chao Yu wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Thread A Background GC
>>>>>>>>> - f2fs_zero_range
>>>>>>>>> - truncate_pagecache_range
>>>>>>>>> - gc_data_segment
>>>>>>>>> - get_read_data_page
>>>>>>>>> - move_data_page
>>>>>>>>> - set_page_dirty
>>>>>>>>> - set_cold_data
>>>>>>>>> - f2fs_do_zero_range
>>>>>>>>> - dn->data_blkaddr = NEW_ADDR;
>>>>>>>>> - f2fs_set_data_blkaddr
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Actually, we don't need to set dirty & checked flag on the page, since
>>>>>>>>> all valid data in the page should be zeroed by zero_range().
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But, it doesn't matter too much, right?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, if the dirtied page is writebacked after f2fs_do_zero_range(),
>>>>>>> result of
>>>>>>> zero_range() should be wrong, as zeroed page contains valid user data.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How about truncating page caches after block address change or doing it
>>>>>> twice
>>>>>> before and after?
>>>>>
>>>>> Thread A Background GC
>>>>> - f2fs_zero_range
>>>>> - truncate_pagecache_range
>>>>> - gc_data_segment
>>>>> - get_read_data_page
>>>>> - move_data_page
>>>>> - set_page_dirty
>>>>> - set_cold_data
>>>>> - f2fs_do_zero_range
>>>>> - dn->data_blkaddr = NEW_ADDR;
>>>>> - f2fs_set_data_blkaddr
>>>>> bdi-flusher
>>>>> - __write_data_page
>>>>> - f2fs_update_data_blkaddr
>>>>> : data_blkaddr has been updated here.
>>>>> - truncate_pagecache_range
>>>>> : data & dnode has been writebacked before page cache truncation?
>>>>>
>>>>> How about this case?
>>>>
>>>> So, truncating pages under dnode lock can address it?
>>>
>>> Normally, our lock dependency is
>>>
>>> ->writepage()
>>> lock data page -> lock dnode page
>>>
>>> here
>>> lock dnode page -> truncate_pagecache_range::lock data page
>>>
>>> Will easily cause deadlock?
>>
>> Yeah. Can we add an inode flag to bypass GC in this case, then?
>
> Hmm, BTW, how about using i_gc_rwsem[WRITE] in a very narrow scope?
Oh, I can see that you submitted a patch to change lock dependency to:
f2fs_lock_op() -> down_write(i_gc_rwsem[WRITE])
At a glance, I haven't see any place can cause deadlock now.
>
> for (index = pg_start; index < pg_end;) {
> f2fs_lock_op();
> down_write(i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
> truncate_page_cache_range(index, index + 4k);
> f2fs_do_zero_range(&dn, index, end);
> up_write(i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
> f2fs_unlock_op();
> f2fs_balance_fs();
> }
Let me update the patch as you suggested.
Thanks,
>
>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Use i_gc_rwsem[WRITE] to avoid such race condition.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hope to avoid abusing i_gc_rwsem[] tho.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Agreed, let's try avoiding until we have to use it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Chao Yu <yuch...@huawei.com>
>>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>>> fs/f2fs/file.c | 2 ++
>>>>>>>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> diff --git a/fs/f2fs/file.c b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>>>>>> index 267ec3794e1e..7bd2412a8c37 100644
>>>>>>>>> --- a/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>>>>>> +++ b/fs/f2fs/file.c
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1309,6 +1309,7 @@ static int f2fs_zero_range(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>>>>> loff_t offset, loff_t len,
>>>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> + down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
>>>>>>>>> down_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem);
>>>>>>>>> ret = filemap_write_and_wait_range(mapping, offset, offset +
>>>>>>>>> len - 1);
>>>>>>>>> if (ret)
>>>>>>>>> @@ -1389,6 +1390,7 @@ static int f2fs_zero_range(struct inode *inode,
>>>>>>>>> loff_t offset, loff_t len,
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> out_sem:
>>>>>>>>> up_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_mmap_sem);
>>>>>>>>> + up_write(&F2FS_I(inode)->i_gc_rwsem[WRITE]);
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> return ret;
>>>>>>>>> }
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> 2.18.0.rc1
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
>> _______________________________________________
>> Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
>> Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
>
> .
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
_______________________________________________
Linux-f2fs-devel mailing list
Linux-f2fs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-f2fs-devel
