xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: spurious -ENOSPC on XFS

To: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: spurious -ENOSPC on XFS
From: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2009 14:27:40 +1100
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902021214310.15622@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Mail-followup-to: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
References: <20090118173144.GA1999@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901201430250.4603@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090120232422.GF10158@disturbed> <20090122205913.GA30859@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090122224347.GA18751@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901231509010.5179@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090124071249.GF32390@disturbed> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0901291136050.19368@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20090131235725.GA24173@disturbed> <Pine.LNX.4.64.0902021214310.15622@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 12:36:40PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Feb 2009, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 11:39:00AM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > On Sat, 24 Jan 2009, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Jan 23, 2009 at 03:14:30PM -0500, Mikulas Patocka wrote:
> > > > > If I placed
> > > > > xfs_sync_inodes(ip->i_mount, SYNC_DELWRI);
> > > > > xfs_sync_inodes(ip->i_mount, SYNC_DELWRI | SYNC_IOWAIT);
> > > > > directly to xfs_flush_device, I got lock dependency warning (though 
> > > > > not a 
> > > > > real deadlock).
> > > > 
> > > > Same reason memory reclaim gives lockdep warnings on XFS - we're
> > > > recursing into operations that take inode locks while we currently
> > > > hold an inode lock.  However, it shouldn't deadlock because
> > > > we should ever try to take the iolock on the inode that we current
> > > > hold it on.
> > > > 
> > > > > So synchronous flushing definitely needs some thinking and lock 
> > > > > rearchitecting.
> > > > 
> > > > No, not at all. At most the grabbing of the iolock in
> > > > xfs_sync_inodes_ag() needs to become a trylock....
> > > 
> > > You are wrong, the comments in the code are right. It really
> > > deadlocks if it is modified to use synchronous wait for the end of
> > > the flush and if the flush is done with xfs_sync_inodes:
....
> > So it is stuck:
> > 
> > 127                 /*
> > 128                  * If we have to flush data or wait for I/O completion
> > 129                  * we need to hold the iolock.
> > 130                  */
> > 131                 if ((flags & SYNC_DELWRI) && VN_DIRTY(inode)) {
> > 132     >>>>>>>>            xfs_ilock(ip, XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED);
> > 133                         lock_flags |= XFS_IOLOCK_SHARED;
> > 134                         error = xfs_flush_pages(ip, 0, -1, fflag, 
> > FI_NONE);
> > 135                         if (flags & SYNC_IOWAIT)
> > 136                                 xfs_ioend_wait(ip);
> > 137                 }
> > 
> > Given that we are stuck on the iolock in xfs_sync_inodes_ag(), I
> > suspect you should re-read my comments above about "lock
> > re-architecting" ;).
> 
> No, if you turn it into a trylock, it will randomly fail if any other 
> process is holding the lock for whatever reason. So you will still get 
> spurious -ENOSPCs, although with lower probability.

The flush is never, ever going to be perfect. While we are blocking
waiting for the flush, other concurrent writes could be doing more
delayed allocation. The flush won't catch these, so we can still get
spurious ENOSPCs even with a *perfect* flush.

Hence there is no point in trying to make the code perfect - we
can look at more complex solutions if and only if the simple
solution is not sufficient.

> > If you make the xfs_ilock() there xfs_ilock_nowait() and avoid data
> > writeback if we don't get the lock the deadlock goes away, right?
> 
> But that premature ENOSPC possibility will still exist.
> The only right solution that I see is to drop this flushing code at all 
> (because it's unfixable), catch -ENOSPCs exactly before you are about to 
> return them to Linux VFS, flush at this point (you are not holding any 
> locks here) and retry.

Still not perfect as soon as you consider concurrency (as per above).

> There seems to be more bugs with forgetting to flush delayed allocation 
> --- you should flush delayed allocation after *every* failed allocate 
> attempt, but the code flushes it only after failed delayed allocate 
> attempt --- i.e. nondelayed allocators, such as xfs_iomap_write_direct 
> (and maybe other places) will still return -ENOSPC without attempting to 
> flush other inodes with delayed allocation.

xfs_iomap_write_direct() is for direct IO, and if that fails due to
ENOSPC, we're going to return the error rather than try to flush
delayed allocation blocks. Users of direct IO care more about
deterministic response than trying to use every last byte of the
filesystem. Such users also don't tend to mix buffered writes
(hence delayed allocation) and direct IO on the same filesystem
precisely because of the non-deterministic nature of buffered IO.
Hence we don't flush here.

xfs_iomap_write_allocate() does the allocation of delayed extents,
which we've already guaranteed that there is space for due to the
flushing in xfs_iomap_write_delay(). Hence we don't flush here,
either.

For metadata allocations (all over the place), we take a reservation
first and so we could trigger a flush in certain circumstances if
the reservation fails (to avoid recursion and transaction subsystem
deadlocks). However, if you are not getting spurious enospc on
creating inodes (as opposed to writing to them) then I see no
immediate need for flushes there, either....

> Syncing should be really moved at the topmost place.

This can only be considered a best effort flush, not a sync.

> This is what I tried: I turned that 500ms wait into a completion:
> 
> 
> Use xfs_sync_inodes and not sync_blockdev. sync_blockdev writes dirty 
> metadata buffers, it doesn't touch inodes and pages at all.
> 
> Also, change that 500ms delay to a wait for completion, so that the
> behavior is not dependent on magic timeout values. XFS developers insist
> that it can't deadlock (I hope they're right).
> 
> Signed-off-by: Mikulas Patocka <mpatocka@xxxxxxxxxx>
.....
> @@ -415,6 +419,7 @@ xfs_syncd_queue_work(
>   * has failed with ENOSPC and we are in the process of scratching our
>   * heads, looking about for more room...
>   */
> +#if 0
>  STATIC void
>  xfs_flush_inode_work(
>       struct xfs_mount *mp,
> @@ -424,16 +429,20 @@ xfs_flush_inode_work(
>       filemap_flush(inode->i_mapping);
>       iput(inode);
>  }
> +#endif
>  
>  void
>  xfs_flush_inode(
>       xfs_inode_t     *ip)
>  {
> +#if 0
>       struct inode    *inode = VFS_I(ip);
> +     DECLARE_COMPLETION_ONSTACK(completion);
>  
>       igrab(inode);
> -     xfs_syncd_queue_work(ip->i_mount, inode, xfs_flush_inode_work);
> -     delay(msecs_to_jiffies(500));
> +     xfs_syncd_queue_work(ip->i_mount, inode, xfs_flush_inode_work, 
> &completion);
> +     wait_for_completion(&completion);
> +#endif

Why did you turn off the initial inode flush?

>  }
>  
>  /*
> @@ -446,7 +455,7 @@ xfs_flush_device_work(
>       void            *arg)
>  {
>       struct inode    *inode = arg;
> -     sync_blockdev(mp->m_super->s_bdev);
> +     xfs_sync_inodes(mp, SYNC_DELWRI | SYNC_IOWAIT);
>       iput(inode);

This should be:

        xfs_sync_inodes(mp, SYNC_DELWRI);
        xfs_sync_inodes(mp, SYNC_DELWRI | SYNC_IOWAIT);

As it will flush the inodes asynchronously and then the second
pass will wait for all the IO to complete. That will be much
more efficient than synchronous flushing.

Cheers,

Dave.
-- 
Dave Chinner
david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>