Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rust: remove guard for rust-bindgen bug #186

Closed

Conversation

TheSven73
Copy link
Collaborator

The bug which this guard protects against
(rust-lang/rust-bindgen#1671)
was fixed upstream as of rust-bindgen v0.53:
rust-lang/rust-bindgen#1688
d650823839f7 ("Remove size_t to usize conversion")

The current recommended rust-bindgen version for building
the Linux kernel is v0.56, so the guard can be safely
dropped.

Signed-off-by: Sven Van Asbroeck [email protected]

The bug which this guard protects against
(rust-lang/rust-bindgen#1671)
was fixed upstream as of rust-bindgen v0.53:
rust-lang/rust-bindgen#1688
d650823839f7 ("Remove size_t to usize conversion")

The current recommended rust-bindgen version for building
the Linux kernel is v0.56, so the guard can be safely
dropped.

Signed-off-by: Sven Van Asbroeck <[email protected]>
@TheSven73
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Will be re-submitted later, as part of a larger (and more useful) PR.

@TheSven73 TheSven73 closed this Apr 14, 2021
@TheSven73 TheSven73 deleted the rust-for-linux-cleanup-guard branch April 14, 2021 23:52
ojeda pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 28, 2022
When using the flushoncommit mount option, during almost every transaction
commit we trigger a warning from __writeback_inodes_sb_nr():

  $ cat fs/fs-writeback.c:
  (...)
  static void __writeback_inodes_sb_nr(struct super_block *sb, ...
  {
        (...)
        WARN_ON(!rwsem_is_locked(&sb->s_umount));
        (...)
  }
  (...)

The trace produced in dmesg looks like the following:

  [947.473890] WARNING: CPU: 5 PID: 930 at fs/fs-writeback.c:2610 __writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
  [947.481623] Modules linked in: nfsd nls_cp437 cifs asn1_decoder cifs_arc4 fscache cifs_md4 ipmi_ssif
  [947.489571] CPU: 5 PID: 930 Comm: btrfs-transacti Not tainted 95.16.3-srb-asrock-00001-g36437ad63879 #186
  [947.497969] RIP: 0010:__writeback_inodes_sb_nr+0x7e/0xb3
  [947.502097] Code: 24 10 4c 89 44 24 18 c6 (...)
  [947.519760] RSP: 0018:ffffc90000777e10 EFLAGS: 00010246
  [947.523818] RAX: 0000000000000000 RBX: 0000000000963300 RCX: 0000000000000000
  [947.529765] RDX: 0000000000000000 RSI: 000000000000fa51 RDI: ffffc90000777e50
  [947.535740] RBP: ffff888101628a90 R08: ffff888100955800 R09: ffff888100956000
  [947.541701] R10: 0000000000000002 R11: 0000000000000001 R12: ffff888100963488
  [947.547645] R13: ffff888100963000 R14: ffff888112fb7200 R15: ffff888100963460
  [947.553621] FS:  0000000000000000(0000) GS:ffff88841fd40000(0000) knlGS:0000000000000000
  [947.560537] CS:  0010 DS: 0000 ES: 0000 CR0: 0000000080050033
  [947.565122] CR2: 0000000008be50c4 CR3: 000000000220c000 CR4: 00000000001006e0
  [947.571072] Call Trace:
  [947.572354]  <TASK>
  [947.573266]  btrfs_commit_transaction+0x1f1/0x998
  [947.576785]  ? start_transaction+0x3ab/0x44e
  [947.579867]  ? schedule_timeout+0x8a/0xdd
  [947.582716]  transaction_kthread+0xe9/0x156
  [947.585721]  ? btrfs_cleanup_transaction.isra.0+0x407/0x407
  [947.590104]  kthread+0x131/0x139
  [947.592168]  ? set_kthread_struct+0x32/0x32
  [947.595174]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
  [947.597561]  </TASK>
  [947.598553] ---[ end trace 644721052755541c ]---

This is because we started using writeback_inodes_sb() to flush delalloc
when committing a transaction (when using -o flushoncommit), in order to
avoid deadlocks with filesystem freeze operations. This change was made
by commit ce8ea7c ("btrfs: don't call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots
in flushoncommit"). After that change we started producing that warning,
and every now and then a user reports this since the warning happens too
often, it spams dmesg/syslog, and a user is unsure if this reflects any
problem that might compromise the filesystem's reliability.

We can not just lock the sb->s_umount semaphore before calling
writeback_inodes_sb(), because that would at least deadlock with
filesystem freezing, since at fs/super.c:freeze_super() sync_filesystem()
is called while we are holding that semaphore in write mode, and that can
trigger a transaction commit, resulting in a deadlock. It would also
trigger the same type of deadlock in the unmount path. Possibly, it could
also introduce some other locking dependencies that lockdep would report.

To fix this call try_to_writeback_inodes_sb() instead of
writeback_inodes_sb(), because that will try to read lock sb->s_umount
and then will only call writeback_inodes_sb() if it was able to lock it.
This is fine because the cases where it can't read lock sb->s_umount
are during a filesystem unmount or during a filesystem freeze - in those
cases sb->s_umount is write locked and sync_filesystem() is called, which
calls writeback_inodes_sb(). In other words, in all cases where we can't
take a read lock on sb->s_umount, writeback is already being triggered
elsewhere.

An alternative would be to call btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() with a
number of pages different from LONG_MAX, for example matching the number
of delalloc bytes we currently have, in which case we would end up
starting all delalloc with filemap_fdatawrite_wbc() and not with an
async flush via filemap_flush() - that is only possible after the rather
recent commit e076ab2 ("btrfs: shrink delalloc pages instead of
full inodes"). However that creates a whole new can of worms due to new
lock dependencies, which lockdep complains, like for example:

[ 8948.247280] ======================================================
[ 8948.247823] WARNING: possible circular locking dependency detected
[ 8948.248353] 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1 Not tainted
[ 8948.248786] ------------------------------------------------------
[ 8948.249320] kworker/u16:18/933570 is trying to acquire lock:
[ 8948.249812] ffff9b3de1591690 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}, at: find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.250638]
               but task is already holding lock:
[ 8948.251140] ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.252018]
               which lock already depends on the new lock.

[ 8948.252710]
               the existing dependency chain (in reverse order) is:
[ 8948.253343]
               -> #2 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 8948.253950]        __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
[ 8948.254354]        start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.254859]        btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.255408]        btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
[ 8948.255942]        btrfs_mksubvol+0x380/0x570 [btrfs]
[ 8948.256406]        btrfs_mksnapshot+0x81/0xb0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.256870]        __btrfs_ioctl_snap_create+0x17f/0x190 [btrfs]
[ 8948.257413]        btrfs_ioctl_snap_create_v2+0xbb/0x140 [btrfs]
[ 8948.257961]        btrfs_ioctl+0x1196/0x3630 [btrfs]
[ 8948.258418]        __x64_sys_ioctl+0x83/0xb0
[ 8948.258793]        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 8948.259146]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 8948.259709]
               -> #1 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}:
[ 8948.260330]        __mutex_lock+0x90/0x900
[ 8948.260692]        btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.261234]        btrfs_commit_transaction+0x32f/0xc00 [btrfs]
[ 8948.261766]        btrfs_set_free_space_cache_v1_active+0x38/0x60 [btrfs]
[ 8948.262379]        btrfs_start_pre_rw_mount+0x119/0x180 [btrfs]
[ 8948.262909]        open_ctree+0x1511/0x171e [btrfs]
[ 8948.263359]        btrfs_mount_root.cold+0x12/0xde [btrfs]
[ 8948.263863]        legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
[ 8948.264242]        vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
[ 8948.264594]        vfs_kern_mount.part.0+0x71/0xb0
[ 8948.265017]        btrfs_mount+0x11d/0x3a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.265462]        legacy_get_tree+0x30/0x50
[ 8948.265851]        vfs_get_tree+0x28/0xc0
[ 8948.266203]        path_mount+0x2d4/0xbe0
[ 8948.266554]        __x64_sys_mount+0x103/0x140
[ 8948.266940]        do_syscall_64+0x3b/0xc0
[ 8948.267300]        entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x44/0xae
[ 8948.267790]
               -> #0 (sb_internal#2){.+.+}-{0:0}:
[ 8948.268322]        __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
[ 8948.268733]        lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
[ 8948.269092]        start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.269591]        find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.270087]        btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
[ 8948.270588]        cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
[ 8948.271051]        btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.271586]        writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
[ 8948.272071]        __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.272579]        extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
[ 8948.273113]        extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
[ 8948.273573]        do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
[ 8948.273942]        filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
[ 8948.274371]        start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.274876]        btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.275417]        flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
[ 8948.275863]        btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.276438]        process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
[ 8948.276829]        worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
[ 8948.277189]        kthread+0xf2/0x120
[ 8948.277506]        ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[ 8948.277868]
               other info that might help us debug this:

[ 8948.278548] Chain exists of:
                 sb_internal#2 --> &fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex --> &root->delalloc_mutex

[ 8948.279601]  Possible unsafe locking scenario:

[ 8948.280102]        CPU0                    CPU1
[ 8948.280508]        ----                    ----
[ 8948.280915]   lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
[ 8948.281271]                                lock(&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex);
[ 8948.281915]                                lock(&root->delalloc_mutex);
[ 8948.282487]   lock(sb_internal#2);
[ 8948.282800]
                *** DEADLOCK ***

[ 8948.283333] 4 locks held by kworker/u16:18/933570:
[ 8948.283750]  #0: ffff9b3dc00a9d48 ((wq_completion)events_unbound){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
[ 8948.284609]  #1: ffffa90349dafe70 ((work_completion)(&fs_info->async_data_reclaim_work)){+.+.}-{0:0}, at: process_one_work+0x1d2/0x5a0
[ 8948.285637]  #2: ffff9b3e14db5040 (&fs_info->delalloc_root_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x97/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.286674]  #3: ffff9b3e09c717d8 (&root->delalloc_mutex){+.+.}-{3:3}, at: start_delalloc_inodes+0x78/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.287596]
              stack backtrace:
[ 8948.287975] CPU: 3 PID: 933570 Comm: kworker/u16:18 Not tainted 5.17.0-rc1-btrfs-next-111 #1
[ 8948.288677] Hardware name: QEMU Standard PC (i440FX + PIIX, 1996), BIOS rel-1.14.0-0-g155821a1990b-prebuilt.qemu.org 04/01/2014
[ 8948.289649] Workqueue: events_unbound btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space [btrfs]
[ 8948.290298] Call Trace:
[ 8948.290517]  <TASK>
[ 8948.290700]  dump_stack_lvl+0x59/0x73
[ 8948.291026]  check_noncircular+0xf3/0x110
[ 8948.291375]  ? start_transaction+0x228/0x6e0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.291826]  __lock_acquire+0x12e8/0x2260
[ 8948.292241]  lock_acquire+0xd7/0x310
[ 8948.292714]  ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.293241]  ? lock_is_held_type+0xea/0x140
[ 8948.293601]  start_transaction+0x44c/0x6e0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.294055]  ? find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.294518]  find_free_extent+0x141e/0x1590 [btrfs]
[ 8948.294957]  ? _raw_spin_unlock+0x29/0x40
[ 8948.295312]  ? btrfs_get_alloc_profile+0x124/0x290 [btrfs]
[ 8948.295813]  btrfs_reserve_extent+0x14b/0x280 [btrfs]
[ 8948.296270]  cow_file_range+0x17e/0x490 [btrfs]
[ 8948.296691]  btrfs_run_delalloc_range+0x345/0x7a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.297175]  ? find_lock_delalloc_range+0x247/0x270 [btrfs]
[ 8948.297678]  writepage_delalloc+0xb5/0x170 [btrfs]
[ 8948.298123]  __extent_writepage+0x156/0x3c0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.298570]  extent_write_cache_pages+0x263/0x460 [btrfs]
[ 8948.299061]  extent_writepages+0x76/0x130 [btrfs]
[ 8948.299495]  do_writepages+0xd2/0x1c0
[ 8948.299817]  ? sched_clock_cpu+0xd/0x110
[ 8948.300160]  ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
[ 8948.300494]  filemap_fdatawrite_wbc+0x68/0x90
[ 8948.300874]  ? do_raw_spin_unlock+0x4b/0xa0
[ 8948.301243]  start_delalloc_inodes+0x17f/0x400 [btrfs]
[ 8948.301706]  ? lock_release+0x155/0x4a0
[ 8948.302055]  btrfs_start_delalloc_roots+0x194/0x2a0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.302564]  flush_space+0x1f2/0x630 [btrfs]
[ 8948.302970]  btrfs_async_reclaim_data_space+0x108/0x1b0 [btrfs]
[ 8948.303510]  process_one_work+0x252/0x5a0
[ 8948.303860]  ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
[ 8948.304221]  worker_thread+0x55/0x3b0
[ 8948.304543]  ? process_one_work+0x5a0/0x5a0
[ 8948.304904]  kthread+0xf2/0x120
[ 8948.305184]  ? kthread_complete_and_exit+0x20/0x20
[ 8948.305598]  ret_from_fork+0x22/0x30
[ 8948.305921]  </TASK>

It all comes from the fact that btrfs_start_delalloc_roots() takes the
delalloc_root_mutex, in the transaction commit path we are holding a
read lock on one of the superblock's freeze semaphores (via
sb_start_intwrite()), the async reclaim task can also do a call to
btrfs_start_delalloc_roots(), which ends up triggering writeback with
calls to filemap_fdatawrite_wbc(), resulting in extent allocation which
in turn can call btrfs_start_transaction(), which will result in taking
the freeze semaphore via sb_start_intwrite(), forming a nasty dependency
on all those locks which can be taken in different orders by different
code paths.

So just adopt the simple approach of calling try_to_writeback_inodes_sb()
at btrfs_start_delalloc_flush().

Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
Link: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/[email protected]/
Reviewed-by: Omar Sandoval <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Filipe Manana <[email protected]>
[ add more link reports ]
Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

1 participant