xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: re-enable xfsaild idle mode and fix associated races

To: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] xfs: re-enable xfsaild idle mode and fix associated races
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2012 04:05:23 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <1339087793-45731-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1339087793-45731-1-git-send-email-bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Thu, Jun 07, 2012 at 12:49:53PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> xfsaild idle mode logic currently leads to a couple hangs:
> 
> 1.) If xfsaild is rescheduled in during an incremental scan
>     (i.e., tout != 0) and the target has been updated since
>     the previous run, we can hit the new target and go into
>     idle mode with a still populated ail.
> 2.) A wake up is only issued when the target is pushed forward.
>     The wake up can race with xfsaild if it is currently in the
>     process of entering idle mode, causing future wake up
>     events to be lost.
> 
> Both hangs are reproducible by running xfstests 273 in a loop.
> Modify xfsaild to enter idle mode only when the ail is empty
> and the push target has not been moved forward since the last
> push.

What tree is this against?  The current XFS tree never fully idles,
so something is missing here, probably just in the patch description.

>       spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> +
> +     /* barrier matches the xa_target update in xfs_ail_push() */
> +     smp_rmb();
> +     target = ailp->xa_target;
> +     ailp->xa_target_prev = target;
> +
>       lip = xfs_trans_ail_cursor_first(ailp, &cur, ailp->xa_last_pushed_lsn);
>       if (!lip) {
>               /*
> +
> +             spin_lock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> +
> +             /*
> +              * Idle if the AIL is empty and we are not racing with a target
> +              * update. The barrier matches the xa_target update in
> +              * xfs_ail_push().
> +              */
> +             smp_rmb();

Given that both sides are under xa_lock I can't see any need for
barriers here.

> +             if (!xfs_ail_min(ailp) && (ailp->xa_target == 
> ailp->xa_target_prev)) {
> +                     spin_unlock(&ailp->xa_lock);
> +                     schedule();
> +                     tout = 0;
> +                     continue;
> +             }

This seems to add the actual idling, but in a rather confusing way.

Can you add the xfs_ail_min and target checks to the end of xfsaild_push
so that they are in one place with the other decisions for the timeout.

Please also add a comment explaining the conditions when we want to
idle.

Also two small style nipicks:

 - please make sure lines are shorter than 80 characters
 - no need for the braces around the target comparism above.

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