On Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:36:23 +0900 Tetsuo Handa
<penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp> wrote:
> >
> > This report is stalling after mount() completed and process used
> > remap_file_pages().
> > I think that we might need to use debug printk(). But I don't know what to
> > examine.
> >
>
> Andrew, can you pick up this debug printk() patch?
> I guess we can get the result within one week.
Sure, let's toss it in -next for a while.
> >From 8f55e00b21fefffbc6abd9085ac503c52a302464 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Tetsuo Handa <penguin-ker...@i-love.sakura.ne.jp>
> Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2018 19:29:06 +0900
> Subject: [PATCH] fs/buffer.c: add debug print for __getblk_gfp() stall problem
>
> Among syzbot's unresolved hung task reports, 18 out of 65 reports contain
> __getblk_gfp() line in the backtrace. Since there is a comment block that
> says that __getblk_gfp() will lock up the machine if try_to_free_buffers()
> attempt from grow_dev_page() is failing, let's start from checking whether
> syzbot is hitting that case. This change will be removed after the bug is
> fixed.
I'm not sure that grow_dev_page() is hanging. It has often been
suspected, but always is proven innocent. Lets see.
>
> ...
>
> @@ -978,6 +988,9 @@ static sector_t blkdev_max_block(struct block_device
> *bdev, unsigned int size)
> spin_unlock(&inode->i_mapping->private_lock);
> done:
> ret = (block < end_block) ? 1 : -ENXIO;
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_AID_FOR_SYZBOT
> + current->getblk_executed |= 0x08;
> +#endif
> failed:
> unlock_page(page);
> put_page(page);
> @@ -1033,6 +1046,12 @@ static sector_t blkdev_max_block(struct block_device
> *bdev, unsigned int size)
Something is wrong with your diff(1). That's grow_dev_page(), not
blkdev_max_block().
> return NULL;
> }
>
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_AID_FOR_SYZBOT
> + current->getblk_stamp = jiffies;
AFACIT getblk_stamp didn't need to be in the task_struct - it could be
a local. Doesn't matter much.
> + current->getblk_executed = 0;
> + current->getblk_bh_count = 0;
> + current->getblk_bh_state = 0;
> +#endif
> for (;;) {
> struct buffer_head *bh;
> int ret;
> @@ -1044,6 +1063,18 @@ static sector_t blkdev_max_block(struct block_device
> *bdev, unsigned int size)
> ret = grow_buffers(bdev, block, size, gfp);
> if (ret < 0)
> return NULL;
> +
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_AID_FOR_SYZBOT
> + if (!time_after(jiffies, current->getblk_stamp + 3 * HZ))
> + continue;
> + printk(KERN_ERR "%s(%u): getblk(): executed=%x bh_count=%d
> bh_state=%lx\n",
> + current->comm, current->pid, current->getblk_executed,
> + current->getblk_bh_count, current->getblk_bh_state);
> + current->getblk_executed = 0;
> + current->getblk_bh_count = 0;
> + current->getblk_bh_state = 0;
> + current->getblk_stamp = jiffies;
> +#endif
> }
> }
>
> @@ -3216,6 +3247,11 @@ int sync_dirty_buffer(struct buffer_head *bh)
> */
> static inline int buffer_busy(struct buffer_head *bh)
> {
> +#ifdef CONFIG_DEBUG_AID_FOR_SYZBOT
> + current->getblk_executed |= 0x80;
> + current->getblk_bh_count = atomic_read(&bh->b_count);
> + current->getblk_bh_state = bh->b_state;
> +#endif
Some explanation of your design wouldn't have hurt. What does
getblk_executed do, why were these particular fields chosen?
> return atomic_read(&bh->b_count) |
> (bh->b_state & ((1 << BH_Dirty) | (1 << BH_Lock)));
> }
>
> ...
>
