[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH] xfs: unmount does not wait for shutdown during unmount

To: Dave Chinner <david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] xfs: unmount does not wait for shutdown during unmount
From: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2014 10:59:25 -0400
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, bob.mastors@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, snitzer@xxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20140415021546.GD31578@dastard>
References: <1397104955-7247-1-git-send-email-david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140414192824.GC62307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20140415021546.GD31578@dastard>
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 12:15:46PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 03:28:24PM -0400, Brian Foster wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 10, 2014 at 02:42:35PM +1000, Dave Chinner wrote:
> > > From: Dave Chinner <dchinner@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > And interesting situation can occur if a log IO error occurs during
> > > the unmount of a filesystem. The cases reported have the same
> > > signature - the update of the superblock counters fails due to a log
> > > write IO error:
> > > 
> > > XFS (dm-16): xfs_do_force_shutdown(0x2) called from line 1170 of file 
> > > fs/xfs/xfs_log.c.  Return address = 0xffffffffa08a44a1
> > > XFS (dm-16): Log I/O Error Detected.  Shutting down filesystem
> > > XFS (dm-16): Unable to update superblock counters. Freespace may not be 
> > > correct on next mount.
> > > XFS (dm-16): xfs_log_force: error 5 returned.
> > > XFS (¿-¿¿¿): Please umount the filesystem and rectify the problem(s)
> > > 
> > > It can be seen that the last line of output contains a corrupt
> > > device name - this is because the log and xfs_mount structures have
> > > already been freed by the time this message is printed. A kernel
> > > oops closely follows.
> > > 
> > > The issue is that the shutdown is occurring in a separate IO
> > > completion thread to the unmount. Once the shutdown processing has
> > > started and all the iclogs are marked with XLOG_STATE_IOERROR, the
> > > log shutdown code wakes anyone waiting on a log force so they can
> > > process the shutdown error. This wakes up the unmount code that
> > > is doing a synchronous transaction to update the superblock
> > > counters.
> > > 
> > > The unmount path now sees all the iclogs are marked with
> > > XLOG_STATE_IOERROR and so never waits on them again, knowing that if
> > > it does, there will not be a wakeup trigger for it and we will hang
> > > the unmount if we do. Hence the unmount runs through all the
> > > remaining code and frees all the filesystem structures while the
> > > xlog_iodone() is still processing the shutdown. When the log
> > > shutdown processing completes, xfs_do_force_shutdown() emits the
> > > "Please umount the filesystem and rectify the problem(s)" message,
> > > and xlog_iodone() then aborts all the objects attached to the iclog.
> > > An iclog that has already been freed....
> > > 
> > > The real issue here is that there is no serialisation point between
> > > the log IO and the unmount. We have serialisations points for log
> > > writes, log forces, reservations, etc, but we don't actually have
> > > any code that wakes for log IO to fully complete. We do that for all
> > > other types of object, so why not iclogbufs?
> > > 
> > > Well, it turns out that we can easily do this. We've got xfs_buf
> > > handles, and that's what everyone else uses for IO serialisation.
> > > i.e. bp->b_sema. So, lets hold iclogbufs locked over IO, and only
> > > release the lock in xlog_iodone() when we are finished with the
> > > buffer. That way before we tear down the iclog, we can lock and
> > > unlock the buffer to ensure IO completion has finished completely
> > > before we tear it down.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thanks for the write up...
> .....
> > On reading the code, my initial thought was that the source of this is
> > the xlog_state_do_callback() call down in the shutdown path, when
> > invoked from the log I/O completion handler. I think you pointed out in
> > your previous reply that even if we were to make that call selective
> > (e.g., based on whether the shutdown is due to a log error and thus we
> > can expect xlog_state_do_callback() to be invoked), we still access
> > relevant data structures after the ic_force_wait wait_queue is woken.
> > Therefore, there would still be a race even if we bypassed the call from
> > within the shutdown path in this particular case.
> > 
> > The logic seems sane to me. I don't notice any issues. But my only
> > question is why the use of locking, as opposed to wiring up use of
> > b_iowait or something into the log I/O handler?
> Log IO is issued B_ASYNC, so the buffer IO completion handlers do
> not issue wakeups to b_iowait waiters. And the iclogbufs are
> uncached buffers, so we can't use the buffer cache waiting
> mechanisms to wait for them, either.

Yeah, I noticed that the completion wouldn't fire as is since it appears
that doesn't occur if a b_iodone call is provided. FWIW, the thought
process was more to inherit the use of b_iowait in xlog_iodone().

> > I ask because it looks
> > just a _bit_ funny to see the lock/unlock cycles used purely as a
> > serialization mechanism. Do we use this kind of pattern in other places?
> Yes, in xfs_log_quiesce(), to wait on the superblock buffer IO
> because:
>         /*
>          * The superblock buffer is uncached and while xfs_ail_push_all_sync()
>          * will push it, xfs_wait_buftarg() will not wait for it. Further,
>          * xfs_buf_iowait() cannot be used because it was pushed with the
>          * XBF_ASYNC flag set, so we need to use a lock/unlock pair to wait 
> for
>          * the IO to complete.
>          */
> Which is exactly the same situation as the iclogbufs - uncached
> buffers, B_ASYNC IO....

Ok, thanks. I see the AIL is pushing buffers through the delwri
interface, which means XBF_ASYNC and thus b_iowait is not fired. What
I'm missing about this example is how this serializes xfs_log_quiesce()
against I/O completion of the superblock...

It looks like we (if necessary), grab/lock the sb at transaction commit
time (xfs_trans_apply_sb_deltas()), make any modifications tracked by
the transaction, log the sb buffer and commit the transaction.

At that point, isn't the buffer lock released at iop_unlock() time..? My
understanding is that this protects against concurrent access. So the
super could be unlocked once the transaction is committed, we do a log
sync, push the ail and do a wait_buftarg(). If the latter won't wait on
sb_bp, what prevents the buf_lock from being acquired before the async
write completes..?

> > I guess on the other hand you could argue it protects the I/O in
> > progress, and yet another wait_queue in this codepath might be overkill
> > (so I like the use of an existing mechanism from that standpoint).
> Mostly I figured that we already have the same IO wait mechanism in
> the log shutdown path for other buffers, so it seemed silly to add
> waitqueues and other infrastructure for something that could be
> handled very easily. It also makes the iclogs look like every other
> buffer in the filesystem in that the buffer lock is held over IO.

When you point out that all buffers in the fs are locked over I/O, I
suspect I'm missing something fundamental in the buffer I/O path. ;)
Digging a little deeper, I see __xfs_buf_delwri_submit() takes the
buffer lock and sends the buffer down for I/O. The lock is
correspondingly released for XBF_ASYNC buffers in the
xfs_buf_iodone_work() callback.

So in the example used above, the sb can be locked, modifed, logged,
committed and unlocked in the tp commit path. The log sync pushes
everything to the log. The AIL push submits writes for all active items
(thus acquiring sb_bp lock). The wait_buftarg() presumably waits for all
cached buffers to write out and the sb_bp lock serializes against
completion of the sb buffer individually.

So in a sense, you've done what I was thinking about with regard to
inheriting b_iowait into the log callback, just doing so with the
locking mechanism instead. Only that appears to be more consistent with
general buffer handling, given that the log buffer I/O is async...

Reviewed-by: Brian Foster <bfoster@xxxxxxxxxx>


> Cheers,
> Dave.
> -- 
> Dave Chinner
> david@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

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