bz 276631 : GFS2: chmod hung - TRY 3
PATCH 1/1 bz 276631 : GFS2: chmod hung - TRY 3
This is a rewrite of the patch. We decided it was a better approach to call separate wrapper functions than trying to work around the problem with a spin_lock.
--
The problem boiled down to a race between the gdlm_init_threads() function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1. Essentially, "if (current == ls->thread1)" was checked by the thread before the thread creator set ls->thread1.
Since thread1 is the only thread who is allowed to work on the blocking queue, and since neither thread thought it was thread1, no one was working on the queue. So everything just sat.
This patch reuses the ls->async_lock spin_lock to fix the race, and it fixes the problem. I've done more than 2000 iterations of the loop that was recreating the failure and it seems to work.
Dave Teigland brought up the question of whether we should do this another way. For example, by checking for the task name "lock_dlm1" instead. I'm open to opinions.
--
--
fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.c +13 -7
@@ -268,20 +268,16 @@ static inline int check_drop(struct gdlmreturn 0 ; } -static int gdlm_thread (void *data) +static int gdlm_thread (void *data,int blist) {struct gdlm_ls *ls = (struct gdlm_ls *) data;struct gdlm_lock *lp =NULL ; -int blist =0 ;uint8_t complete, blocking, submit, drop;DECLARE_WAITQUEUE (wait, current);/* Only thread1 is allowed to do blocking callbacks since gfs may wait for a completion callback within a blocking cb. */ -if (current == ls->thread1) - blist =1 ; -while (!kthread_should_stop ()) {set_current_state (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE );add_wait_queue (&ls->thread_wait, &wait);
@@ -333,12 +329,22 @@ static int gdlm_thread(void *data)return 0 ; } +static int gdlm_thread1 (void *data) +{ +return gdlm_thread (data,1 ); +} + +static int gdlm_thread2 (void *data) +{ +return gdlm_thread (data,0 ); +} +int gdlm_init_threads (struct gdlm_ls *ls) {struct task_struct *p;int error; - p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread, ls,"lock_dlm1" ); + p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread1, ls,"lock_dlm1" ); error =IS_ERR (p);if (error) {log_error ("can't start lock_dlm1 thread %d" , error);
@@ -346,7 +352,7 @@ int gdlm_init_threads(struct gdlm_ls *ls } ls->thread1 = p; - p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread, ls,"lock_dlm2" ); + p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread2, ls,"lock_dlm2" ); error =IS_ERR (p);if (error) {log_error ("can't start lock_dlm2 thread %d" , error);
PATCH 1/1 bz 276631 : GFS2: chmod hung - TRY 3
Hi,
Now in the -nmw git tree. Thanks,
Steve.
Quoted 83 lines · Bob Peterson
This is a rewrite of the patch. We decided it was a better approach to call separate wrapper functions than trying to work around the problem with a
spin_lock.
--
The problem boiled down to a race between thegdlm_init_threads()function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1. Essentially, "if (current ==ls->thread1)" was checked by the thread before the thread creator setls->thread1.Since thread1 is the only thread who is allowed to work on the blocking queue, and since neither thread thought it was thread1, no one was working on the queue. So everything just sat.
This patch reuses the
ls->async_lockspin_lockto fix the race, and it fixes the problem. I've done more than 2000 iterations of the loop that was recreating the failure and it seems to work.Dave Teigland brought up the question of whether we should do this another way. For example, by checking for the task name "
lock_dlm1" instead. I'm open to opinions.
--Signed-off-by Bob Peterson <[email protected]>--
diff -pura/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.cb/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.cfs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.c +13
-7@@ -268,20 +268,16 @@ static inline int check_drop(struct gdlmreturn 0 ; } -static int gdlm_thread (void *data) +static int gdlm_thread (void *data,int blist) {struct gdlm_ls *ls = (struct gdlm_ls *) data;struct gdlm_lock *lp =NULL ; -int blist =0 ;uint8_t complete, blocking, submit, drop;DECLARE_WAITQUEUE (wait, current);/* Only thread1 is allowed to do blocking callbacks since gfs may wait for a completion callback within a blocking cb. */ -if (current == ls->thread1) - blist =1 ; -while (!kthread_should_stop ()) {set_current_state (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE );add_wait_queue (&ls->thread_wait, &wait);@@ -333,12 +329,22 @@ static int gdlm_thread(void *data)return 0 ; } +static int gdlm_thread1 (void *data) +{ +return gdlm_thread (data,1 ); +} + +static int gdlm_thread2 (void *data) +{ +return gdlm_thread (data,0 ); +} +int gdlm_init_threads (struct gdlm_ls *ls) {struct task_struct *p;int error; - p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread, ls,"lock_dlm1" ); + p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread1, ls,"lock_dlm1" ); error =IS_ERR (p);if (error) {log_error ("can't start lock_dlm1 thread %d" , error);@@ -346,7 +352,7 @@ int gdlm_init_threads(struct gdlm_ls *ls } ls->thread1 = p; - p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread, ls,"lock_dlm2" ); + p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread2, ls,"lock_dlm2" ); error =IS_ERR (p);if (error) {log_error ("can't start lock_dlm2 thread %d" , error);
PATCH 1/1 bz 276631 : GFS2: chmod hung - TRY 3
In reply to Bob PetersonQuoted 3 lines · Bob Peterson
This is a rewrite of the patch. We decided it was a better approach to call separate wrapper functions than trying to work around the problem with a
spin_lock.
ACK, I noticed that this isn't in git yet
Quoted 79 lines
--
The problem boiled down to a race between thegdlm_init_threads()function initializing thread1 and its setting of blist = 1. Essentially, "if (current ==ls->thread1)" was checked by the thread before the thread creator setls->thread1.Since thread1 is the only thread who is allowed to work on the blocking queue, and since neither thread thought it was thread1, no one was working on the queue. So everything just sat.
This patch reuses the
ls->async_lockspin_lockto fix the race, and it fixes the problem. I've done more than 2000 iterations of the loop that was recreating the failure and it seems to work.Dave Teigland brought up the question of whether we should do this another way. For example, by checking for the task name "
lock_dlm1" instead. I'm open to opinions.
--Signed-off-by Bob Peterson <[email protected]>--
diff -pura/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.cb/fs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.cfs/gfs2/locking/dlm/thread.c +13
-7@@ -268,20 +268,16 @@ static inline int check_drop(struct gdlmreturn 0 ; } -static int gdlm_thread (void *data) +static int gdlm_thread (void *data,int blist) {struct gdlm_ls *ls = (struct gdlm_ls *) data;struct gdlm_lock *lp =NULL ; -int blist =0 ;uint8_t complete, blocking, submit, drop;DECLARE_WAITQUEUE (wait, current);/* Only thread1 is allowed to do blocking callbacks since gfs may wait for a completion callback within a blocking cb. */ -if (current == ls->thread1) - blist =1 ; -while (!kthread_should_stop ()) {set_current_state (TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE );add_wait_queue (&ls->thread_wait, &wait);@@ -333,12 +329,22 @@ static int gdlm_thread(void *data)return 0 ; } +static int gdlm_thread1 (void *data) +{ +return gdlm_thread (data,1 ); +} + +static int gdlm_thread2 (void *data) +{ +return gdlm_thread (data,0 ); +} +int gdlm_init_threads (struct gdlm_ls *ls) {struct task_struct *p;int error; - p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread, ls,"lock_dlm1" ); + p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread1, ls,"lock_dlm1" ); error =IS_ERR (p);if (error) {log_error ("can't start lock_dlm1 thread %d" , error);@@ -346,7 +352,7 @@ int gdlm_init_threads(struct gdlm_ls *ls } ls->thread1 = p; - p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread, ls,"lock_dlm2" ); + p =kthread_run (gdlm_thread2, ls,"lock_dlm2" ); error =IS_ERR (p);if (error) {log_error ("can't start lock_dlm2 thread %d" , error);
PATCH 1/1 bz 276631 : GFS2: chmod hung - TRY 3
Quoted 1 line · David Teigland
ACK, I noticed that this isn't in git yet
AFAICT, it's in the git tree:
Are you sure you were looking at nmw?
PATCH 1/1 bz 276631 : GFS2: chmod hung - TRY 3
Quoted 8 lines · Bob Peterson
Quoted 1 line · David Teigland
ACK, I noticed that this isn't in git yet
AFAICT, it's in the git tree:
Are you sure you were looking at nmw?
I see, the problem was that the subject started with "chmod hung" at which point I moved to the next. It would be great if we could pick slightly better subjects that zero in on the specific bug or fix.
I also just noticed that the description of the patch includes:
"This patch reuses the ls->async_lock spin_lock to fix the race..." which isn't true any more, of course.