xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: allocation worker causes freelist buffer lock hang

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: allocation worker causes freelist buffer lock hang
From: Mark Tinguely <tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2012 10:14:16 -0500
Cc: bpm@xxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20120925005632.GB23520@dastard>
References: <20120924171159.GG1140@xxxxxxx> <201209241809.q8OI94s3003323@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20120925005632.GB23520@dastard>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20120122 Thunderbird/9.0
On 09/24/12 19:56, Dave Chinner wrote:
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 01:09:04PM -0500, Mark Tinguely wrote:
 From bpm@xxxxxxx Mon Sep 24 12:11:59 2012
Date: Mon, 24 Sep 2012 12:11:59 -0500
From: Ben Myers<bpm@xxxxxxx>
To:<tinguely@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] xfs: allocation worker causes freelist buffer lock
        hang
Cc:<xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Hi Mark,

On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 11:31:33AM -0500, tinguely@xxxxxxx wrote:
...
I traced the callers of xfs_alloc_vextent(), noting transaction creation,
commits and cancels; I noted loops in the callers and which were marked
as metadata/userdata. I can send this document to reviewers.

I'd like to see the doc of xfs_alloc_vextent callers and which of them loop.
Can you post your doc to the list?

Regards,
        Ben


Here are the Linux 3.6.x callers of xfs_alloc_vextent() stopping at the
transaction commit/cancel level.

XFS_BMAPI_METADATA *not* being set implies user data.

Userdata being set is the community designated indication that an allocate
worker is needed to prevent the overflow of the kernel stack.

Calling xfs_alloc_vextent() several times with the same transaction can cause
a dead lock if a new allocation worker can not be allocated. I noted where the
loops occur. xfs_alloc_vextent() can call itself, those calls must be in the
same allocation worker.

As a bonus, consolidating the loops into one worker actually gives a slight
performance advantage.

Can you quantify it?

I was comparing the bonnie and iozone benchmarks outputs. I will see if someone can enlighten me on how to quantify those numbers.


Sorry this is wider than 80 characters wide.
                ---
xfs_bmap_btalloc(xfs_bmalloca_t)
! xfs_bmap_alloc(xfs_bmalloca_t)
! ! xfs_bmapi_allocate(xfs_bmalloca_t, ...)
! ! ! xfs_bmapi_write(xfs_trans_t ...)  loops over above
! ! ! ! xfs_attr_rmtval_set(xfs_da_args_t) loops over bmapi_write 
(xfs_attr_set_int) **XFS_BMAPI_METADATA**
! ! ! ! xfs_da_grow_inode_int(xfs_da_args_t) loops over bmapi_write 
**XFS_BMAPI_METADATA**
! ! ! ! xfs_qm_dqalloc(xfs_trans_t ...) does a xfs_bmap_finish/cancel 
**XFS_BMAPI_METADATA**
! ! ! ! xfs_iomap_write_direct(...) alloc trans, xfs_trans_commit/cancel
! ! ! ! xfs_iomap_write_allocate(...) alloc trans, xfs_trans_commit/cancel safe 
loop
! ! ! ! xfs_iomap_write_unwritten(..) alloc trans, xfs_trans_commit/cancel safe 
loop
! ! ! ! xfs_growfs_rt_alloc(..) alloc trans, xfs_trans_commit/cancel safe loop
! ! ! ! xfs_symlink(...) allocates trans does a xfs_trans_commit/cancel
! ! ! ! xfs_alloc_file_space(...) alloc trans, xfs_trans_commit/cancel safe loop

So the only data path callers though here are
xfs_iomap_write_direct(), xfs_iomap_write_allocate() and
xfs_iomap_write_unwritten() and xfs_alloc_file_space(). Everything
else is metadata, so won't use

Correct. Only these use the worker. All the other paths directly call the __xfs_alloc_vextent() routine. I saved the xfs_bmalloca and fs_alloc_arg when allocating a buffer. I am quite confident that this is the only path that causes the problem.

xfs_bmap_extents_to_btree(xfs_trans_t ...)<- set userdata to 0 (patch 3)
! xfs_bmap_add_attrfork_extents(xfs_trans_t ...)
! ! xfs_bmap_add_attrfork(...) allocates trans does a xfs_trans_commit/cancel
! xfs_bmap_add_extent_delay_real(fs_bmalloca)
! ! xfs_bmapi_allocate(xfs_bmalloca_t, ...)
! ! !<see above>
! xfs_bmap_add_extent_unwritten_real(xfs_trans_t ...)
! ! xfs_bmapi_convert_unwritten(xfs_bmalloca ...)
! ! ! xfs_bmapi_write(xfs_trans ...) calls xfs_bmapi_convert_unwritten in loop 
XFS_BMAPI_METADATA
! ! ! ! ...<see above>
.....
! xfs_bmap_add_extent_hole_real(xfs_bmalloca ...)
! ! xfs_bmapi_allocate(xfs_bmalloca_t, ...)
! ! ! ...<see above>

So it's bmbt modification that looks to be the problem here, right?

xfs_bmap_local_to_extents(xfs_trans_t ...)<- set userdata to 0 (patch 3)
! xfs_bmap_add_attrfork_local(xfs_trans_t ..)
! ! xfs_bmap_add_attrfork(...) trans alloc, bmap_finish trans_commit/cancel
! xfs_bmapi_write(xfs_trans_t ...) XFS_BMAPI_METADATA
! ! ...<see above>

Same here.

That's all I can see as problematic - maybe I read the output wrong
and there's others?

i.e. all other xfs_alloc_vextent() callers are either in metadata
context (so don't use the workqueue) or commit the transaction
directly after xfs_bmapi_write returns so will unlock the AGF buffer
before calling into xfs_bmapi_write a second time.

If these are the only loops, then patch 3 is all that is
necessary to avoid the problem of blocking on workqueue resource
while we are already on the workqueue, right? i.e. bmbt allocation
is a metadata allocation, even though the context is a data
allocation, and ensuring it is metadata means that the current
transaction won't get blocked waiting for workqueue resources...

What am I missing?

Patch 3 is a clean up. userdata is used by the allocation routines and its value should be correct for those routines. I discovered the uninitialized values tracing the calling list. The fact that the worker routine was using and randomly creating a worker based on the stack value is not a factor in the problem because those paths do not loop on xfs_alloc_vextent().

Patch 2 moves the worker so that when the worker servicing data allocation request gets the lock, it will hold the worker over the loop in xfs_bmapi_write() until it can do a xfs_trans_commit/cancel. If it does not have the lock, then that worker will wait until it can get the lock.

Your patch hangs when limiting the available workers on test 109 on the 3 machines (2 x86_64 and a x86_32) that I tried it on. I am trying a fourth machine to be sure.

Thanks,

--Mark.

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