writeback: sync returns with dirty pages exist
Subsystems (4)
Hello, Tejun,
I have found that system call sync may return even if dirty pages still exist. This is caused by the following case:
sync
-> sync_inodes_sb()
-> bdi_split_work_to_wbs() queue works for each wb -> wb_wait_for_completions() wait for these works to complete.
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
race window. Writeback thread found it should switch to another
new wb while doing foreign cgroup detect. So a new wb is created, and the inodes are move from old wb to the new one. The writeback work for old wb is done, so the sync process is woken while the inodes with dirty pages are still queued in new wb.
regards,
Jiufei
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): dc694ae2-f07f-61e1-7097-7c8411cee12d-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Hello,
Quoted 8 lines · xuejiufei
I have found that system call sync may return even if dirty pages still exist. This is caused by the following case:
sync
->sync_inodes_sb()
->bdi_split_work_to_wbs()queue works for each wb ->wb_wait_for_completions()wait for these works to complete.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
race window. Writeback thread found it should switch to another
new wb while doing foreign cgroup detect. So a new wb is created, and the inodes are move from old wb to the new one. The writeback work for old wb is done, so the sync process is woken while the inodes with dirty pages are still queued in new wb.
Oops, yeah, that sounds plausible. Will look into it.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Hello, Xuejiufei.
Quoted 8 lines · xuejiufei
I have found that system call sync may return even if dirty pages still exist. This is caused by the following case:
sync
->sync_inodes_sb()
->bdi_split_work_to_wbs()queue works for each wb ->wb_wait_for_completions()wait for these works to complete.
Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
race window. Writeback thread found it should switch to another
new wb while doing foreign cgroup detect. So a new wb is created, and the inodes are move from old wb to the new one. The writeback work for old wb is done, so the sync process is woken while the inodes with dirty pages are still queued in new wb.
So, wb_wait_for_completion() may end up returning earlier than expected but data integrity is waited by wait_sb_inodes() which isn't affected by inode cgroup wb migrations. Have you actually seen this happening?
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 20171205182007.GV2421075-4dN5La/[email protected]
Hello Tejun,
Quoted 17 lines · Tejun Heo
Hello, Xuejiufei.
Quoted 8 lines · xuejiufei
I have found that system call sync may return even if dirty pages still exist. This is caused by the following case:
sync
->sync_inodes_sb()
->bdi_split_work_to_wbs()queue works for each wb ->wb_wait_for_completions()wait for these works to complete.Quoted 5 lines
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
Quoted 1 line
race window. Writeback thread found it should switch to another
new wb while doing foreign cgroup detect. So a new wb is created, and the inodes are move from old wb to the new one. The writeback work for old wb is done, so the sync process is woken while the inodes with dirty pages are still queued in new wb.
Quoted 5 lines
So,
wb_wait_for_completion()may end up returning earlier than expected but data integrity is waited bywait_sb_inodes()which isn't affected by inode cgroup wb migrations. Have you actually seen this happening?
Yes, I have seen it actually happening. I think wait_sb_inodes() only wait for pages tagged with PAGECACHE_TAG_WRITEBACK, that means it wait the pages written before. The pages are not written are still tagged with PAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTY and wait_sb_inodes() will not wait for them.
Thanks
Quoted 2 lines
Thanks.
A message that is not in the archive (sent off-list or not yet received): 8844b550-d91c-38d5-997a-a899d1e4aa42-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org
Hello,
Quoted 9 lines · xuejiufei
Quoted 5 lines
So,
wb_wait_for_completion()may end up returning earlier than expected but data integrity is waited bywait_sb_inodes()which isn't affected by inode cgroup wb migrations. Have you actually seen this happening?Yes, I have seen it actually happening. I think
wait_sb_inodes()only wait for pages tagged withPAGECACHE_TAG_WRITEBACK, that means it wait the pages written before. The pages are not written are still tagged withPAGECACHE_TAG_DIRTYandwait_sb_inodes()will not wait for them.
Ah, you're right. Working on the fix.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Tejun Heo
maintainerPATCH 1/1 writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
In reply to xuejiufeisync_inodes_sb() can race against cgwb (cgroup writeback) membership switches and fail to writeback some inodes. For example, if an inode switches to another wb while sync_inodes_sb() is in progress, the new wb might not be visible to bdi_split_work_to_wbs() at all or the inode might jump from a wb which hasn't issued writebacks yet to one which already has.
This patch adds backing_dev_info->wb_switch_rwsem to synchronize cgwb switch path against sync_inodes_sb() so that sync_inodes_sb() is guaranteed to see all the target wbs and inodes can't jump wbs to escape syncing.
--- fs/fs-writeback.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h | 1 mm/backing-dev.c | 3 ++ 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
fs/fs-writeback.c +48 -2
@@ -331,11 +331,22 @@ struct inode_switch_wbs_context {struct work_struct work; }; +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +down_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} + +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +up_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} +static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn (struct work_struct *work) {struct inode_switch_wbs_context *isw = container_of(work, struct inode_switch_wbs_context, work);struct inode *inode = isw->inode; +struct backing_dev_info *bdi =inode_to_bdi (inode);struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;struct bdi_writeback *old_wb = inode->i_wb;struct bdi_writeback *new_wb = isw->new_wb;
@@ -344,6 +355,12 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(strvoid **slot;/* +* If @inode switches cgwb membership while sync_inodes_sb() is +* being issued, sync_inodes_sb() might miss it. Synchronize. +*/ +down_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); + +/* * By the time control reaches here, RCU grace period has passed * since I_WB_SWITCH assertion and all wb stat update transactions * between unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin/end() are guaranteed to be
@@ -435,6 +452,8 @@ skip_switch:spin_unlock (&new_wb->list_lock);spin_unlock (&old_wb->list_lock); +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +if (switched) {wb_wakeup (new_wb);wb_put (old_wb);
@@ -475,9 +494,18 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inodif (inode->i_state &I_WB_SWITCH )return ; +/* +* Avoid starting new switches while sync_inodes_sb() is in +* progress. Otherwise, if the down_write protected issue path +* blocks heavily, we might end up starting a large number of +* switches which will block on the rwsem. +*/ +if (!down_read_trylock (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem)) +return ; + isw =kzalloc (sizeof (*isw),GFP_ATOMIC );if (!isw) -return ; + goto out_unlock;/* find and pin the new wb */ rcu_read_lock ();
@@ -511,12 +539,14 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod* Let's continue after I_WB_SWITCH is guaranteed to be visible. */ call_rcu (&isw->rcu_head, inode_switch_wbs_rcu_fn); -return ; + goto out_unlock; out_free:if (isw->new_wb)wb_put (isw->new_wb);kfree (isw); +out_unlock: +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); }/**
@@ -893,6 +923,9 @@ fs_initcall(cgroup_writeback_init);#else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK */ +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static struct bdi_writeback *locked_inode_to_wb_and_lock_list (struct inode *inode) __releases(&inode->i_lock)
@@ -2422,8 +2455,21 @@ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *return ;WARN_ON (!rwsem_is_locked (&sb->s_umount)); +/* +* Protect against inode wb switch in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(). +* We want to synchronize syncs against switches. Synchronizing +* among syncs isn't necessary but it shouldn't matter especially +* as we're only protecting the issuing. +* +* Once we grab the rwsem, bdi_split_work_to_wbs() is guaranteed to +* see all the target wbs. If the wb membership hasn't changed, +* through the ordering visible to the caller; otherwise, through +* the transitive ordering via the rwsem. +*/ +bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);bdi_split_work_to_wbs (bdi, &work, false);wb_wait_for_completion (bdi, &done); +bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);wait_sb_inodes (sb); }
include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h +1 -0
@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info {#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK struct radix_tree_root cgwb_tree;/* radix tree of active cgroup wbs */ struct rb_root cgwb_congested_tree;/* their congested states */ +struct rw_semaphore wb_switch_rwsem;/* no cgwb switch while syncing */ #else struct bdi_writeback_congested *wb_congested;#endif
mm/backing-dev.c +3 -0
@@ -813,6 +813,9 @@ static int cgwb_bdi_init(struct backing_wb_congested_put (bdi->wb_congested);return err; } + +init_rwsem (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +return 0 ; }
Re: [PATCH] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
Hi Tejun,
Quoted 149 lines · Tejun Heo
sync_inodes_sb()can race against cgwb (cgroup writeback) membership switches and fail to writeback some inodes. For example, if an inode switches to another wb whilesync_inodes_sb()is in progress, the new wb might not be visible tobdi_split_work_to_wbs()at all or the inode might jump from a wb which hasn't issued writebacks yet to one which already has.This patch adds
backing_dev_info->wb_switch_rwsemto synchronize cgwb switch path againstsync_inodes_sb()so thatsync_inodes_sb()is guaranteed to see all the target wbs and inodes can't jump wbs to escape syncing.Signed-off-by Tejun Heo <[email protected]>Reported-by Jiufei Xue <[email protected]>--- fs/fs-writeback.c | 50 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h | 1 mm/backing-dev.c | 3 ++ 3 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)fs/fs-writeback.c +48
-2@@ -331,11 +331,22 @@ struct inode_switch_wbs_context {struct work_struct work; }; +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +down_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} + +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +up_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} +static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn (struct work_struct *work) {struct inode_switch_wbs_context *isw = container_of(work, struct inode_switch_wbs_context, work);struct inode *inode = isw->inode; +struct backing_dev_info *bdi =inode_to_bdi (inode);struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;struct bdi_writeback *old_wb = inode->i_wb;struct bdi_writeback *new_wb = isw->new_wb;@@ -344,6 +355,12 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(strvoid **slot;/* +* If @inode switches cgwb membership while sync_inodes_sb() is +* being issued, sync_inodes_sb() might miss it. Synchronize. +*/ +down_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); + +/* * By the time control reaches here, RCU grace period has passed * since I_WB_SWITCH assertion and all wb stat update transactions * between unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin/end() are guaranteed to be @@ -435,6 +452,8 @@ skip_switch:spin_unlock (&new_wb->list_lock);spin_unlock (&old_wb->list_lock); +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +if (switched) {wb_wakeup (new_wb);wb_put (old_wb);@@ -475,9 +494,18 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inodif (inode->i_state &I_WB_SWITCH )return ; +/* +* Avoid starting new switches while sync_inodes_sb() is in +* progress. Otherwise, if the down_write protected issue path +* blocks heavily, we might end up starting a large number of +* switches which will block on the rwsem. +*/ +if (!down_read_trylock (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem)) +return ; + isw =kzalloc (sizeof (*isw),GFP_ATOMIC );if (!isw) -return ; + goto out_unlock;/* find and pin the new wb */ rcu_read_lock ();@@ -511,12 +539,14 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod* Let's continue after I_WB_SWITCH is guaranteed to be visible. */ call_rcu (&isw->rcu_head, inode_switch_wbs_rcu_fn); -return ; + goto out_unlock; out_free:if (isw->new_wb)wb_put (isw->new_wb);kfree (isw); +out_unlock: +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); }/** @@ -893,6 +923,9 @@ fs_initcall(cgroup_writeback_init);#else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK */ +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static struct bdi_writeback *locked_inode_to_wb_and_lock_list (struct inode *inode) __releases(&inode->i_lock)@@ -2422,8 +2455,21 @@ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *return ;WARN_ON (!rwsem_is_locked (&sb->s_umount)); +/* +* Protect against inode wb switch in inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(). +* We want to synchronize syncs against switches. Synchronizing +* among syncs isn't necessary but it shouldn't matter especially +* as we're only protecting the issuing. +* +* Once we grab the rwsem, bdi_split_work_to_wbs() is guaranteed to +* see all the target wbs. If the wb membership hasn't changed, +* through the ordering visible to the caller; otherwise, through +* the transitive ordering via the rwsem. +*/ +bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);bdi_split_work_to_wbs (bdi, &work, false);wb_wait_for_completion (bdi, &done); +bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);wait_sb_inodes (sb); }include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h +1
-0@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info {#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK struct radix_tree_root cgwb_tree;/* radix tree of active cgroup wbs */ struct rb_root cgwb_congested_tree;/* their congested states */ +struct rw_semaphore wb_switch_rwsem;/* no cgwb switch while syncing */ #else struct bdi_writeback_congested *wb_congested;#endif
mm/backing-dev.c static int cgwb_bdi_init(struct backing_ · line 818
Quoted 6 lines
mm/backing-dev.c +3
-0@@ -813,6 +813,9 @@ static int cgwb_bdi_init(struct backing_wb_congested_put (bdi->wb_congested);return err; } + +init_rwsem (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +
The initialization of wb_switch_rwsem should be in the conditional compilation of CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK, right?
Thanks.
Xuejiufei
Quoted 4 lines
mm/backing-dev.c +0
-0return 0 ; }
Tejun Heo
maintainerRe: [PATCH] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
Hello,
Quoted 3 lines · xuejiufei
The initialization of
wb_switch_rwsemshould be in the conditional compilation ofCONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK, right?
Oops, you're right. Will update the patch.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Tejun Heo
maintainerPATCH v2 1/1 writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
In reply to Tejun Heosync_inodes_sb() can race against cgwb (cgroup writeback) membership switches and fail to writeback some inodes. For example, if an inode switches to another wb while sync_inodes_sb() is in progress, the new wb might not be visible to bdi_split_work_to_wbs() at all or the inode might jump from a wb which hasn't issued writebacks yet to one which already has.
This patch adds backing_dev_info->wb_switch_rwsem to synchronize cgwb switch path against sync_inodes_sb() so that sync_inodes_sb() is guaranteed to see all the target wbs and inodes can't jump wbs to escape syncing.
v2: Fixed misplaced rwsem init. Spotted by Jiufei.
--- fs/fs-writeback.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h | 1 mm/backing-dev.c | 1 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
fs/fs-writeback.c +38 -2
@@ -331,11 +331,22 @@ struct inode_switch_wbs_context {struct work_struct work; }; +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +down_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} + +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +up_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} +static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn (struct work_struct *work) {struct inode_switch_wbs_context *isw = container_of(work, struct inode_switch_wbs_context, work);struct inode *inode = isw->inode; +struct backing_dev_info *bdi =inode_to_bdi (inode);struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;struct bdi_writeback *old_wb = inode->i_wb;struct bdi_writeback *new_wb = isw->new_wb;
@@ -344,6 +355,12 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(strvoid **slot;/* +* If @inode switches cgwb membership while sync_inodes_sb() is +* being issued, sync_inodes_sb() might miss it. Synchronize. +*/ +down_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); + +/* * By the time control reaches here, RCU grace period has passed * since I_WB_SWITCH assertion and all wb stat update transactions * between unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin/end() are guaranteed to be
@@ -435,6 +452,8 @@ skip_switch:spin_unlock (&new_wb->list_lock);spin_unlock (&old_wb->list_lock); +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +if (switched) {wb_wakeup (new_wb);wb_put (old_wb);
@@ -475,9 +494,18 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inodif (inode->i_state &I_WB_SWITCH )return ; +/* +* Avoid starting new switches while sync_inodes_sb() is in +* progress. Otherwise, if the down_write protected issue path +* blocks heavily, we might end up starting a large number of +* switches which will block on the rwsem. +*/ +if (!down_read_trylock (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem)) +return ; + isw =kzalloc (sizeof (*isw),GFP_ATOMIC );if (!isw) -return ; + goto out_unlock;/* find and pin the new wb */ rcu_read_lock ();
@@ -511,12 +539,14 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod* Let's continue after I_WB_SWITCH is guaranteed to be visible. */ call_rcu (&isw->rcu_head, inode_switch_wbs_rcu_fn); -return ; + goto out_unlock; out_free:if (isw->new_wb)wb_put (isw->new_wb);kfree (isw); +out_unlock: +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); }/**
@@ -893,6 +923,9 @@ fs_initcall(cgroup_writeback_init);#else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK */ +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static struct bdi_writeback *locked_inode_to_wb_and_lock_list (struct inode *inode) __releases(&inode->i_lock)
@@ -2422,8 +2455,11 @@ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *return ;WARN_ON (!rwsem_is_locked (&sb->s_umount)); +/* protect against inode wb switch, see inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() */ +bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);bdi_split_work_to_wbs (bdi, &work, false);wb_wait_for_completion (bdi, &done); +bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);wait_sb_inodes (sb); }
include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h +1 -0
@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info {#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK struct radix_tree_root cgwb_tree;/* radix tree of active cgroup wbs */ struct rb_root cgwb_congested_tree;/* their congested states */ +struct rw_semaphore wb_switch_rwsem;/* no cgwb switch while syncing */ #else struct bdi_writeback_congested *wb_congested;#endif
mm/backing-dev.c +1 -0
@@ -706,6 +706,7 @@ static int cgwb_bdi_init(struct backing_INIT_RADIX_TREE (&bdi->cgwb_tree,GFP_ATOMIC ); bdi->cgwb_congested_tree =RB_ROOT ; +init_rwsem (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); ret =wb_init (&bdi->wb, bdi,1 ,GFP_KERNEL );if (!ret) {
Jan Kara
reviewerRe: [PATCH v2] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
Quoted 7 lines · Tejun Heo
sync_inodes_sb()can race against cgwb (cgroup writeback) membership switches and fail to writeback some inodes. For example, if an inode switches to another wb whilesync_inodes_sb()is in progress, the new wb might not be visible tobdi_split_work_to_wbs()at all or the inode might jump from a wb which hasn't issued writebacks yet to one which already has.
Quoted 6 lines
This patch adds
backing_dev_info->wb_switch_rwsemto synchronize cgwb switch path againstsync_inodes_sb()so thatsync_inodes_sb()is guaranteed to see all the target wbs and inodes can't jump wbs to escape syncing.v2: Fixed misplaced rwsem init. Spotted by Jiufei.
OK, but this effectively prevents writeback from sync_inodes_sb() to ever make inode switch wbs. Cannot that be abused in some way like making sure writeback of our memcg is "invisible" by forcing it out using sync(2)? It just looks a bit dangerous to me...
Honza
Quoted 134 lines
Signed-off-by Tejun Heo <[email protected]>Reported-by Jiufei Xue <[email protected]>--- fs/fs-writeback.c | 40 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-- include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h | 1 mm/backing-dev.c | 1 3 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)fs/fs-writeback.c +38
-2@@ -331,11 +331,22 @@ struct inode_switch_wbs_context {struct work_struct work; }; +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +down_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} + +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) +{ +up_write (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +} +static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn (struct work_struct *work) {struct inode_switch_wbs_context *isw = container_of(work, struct inode_switch_wbs_context, work);struct inode *inode = isw->inode; +struct backing_dev_info *bdi =inode_to_bdi (inode);struct address_space *mapping = inode->i_mapping;struct bdi_writeback *old_wb = inode->i_wb;struct bdi_writeback *new_wb = isw->new_wb;@@ -344,6 +355,12 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(strvoid **slot;/* +* If @inode switches cgwb membership while sync_inodes_sb() is +* being issued, sync_inodes_sb() might miss it. Synchronize. +*/ +down_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); + +/* * By the time control reaches here, RCU grace period has passed * since I_WB_SWITCH assertion and all wb stat update transactions * between unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin/end() are guaranteed to be @@ -435,6 +452,8 @@ skip_switch:spin_unlock (&new_wb->list_lock);spin_unlock (&old_wb->list_lock); +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); +if (switched) {wb_wakeup (new_wb);wb_put (old_wb);@@ -475,9 +494,18 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inodif (inode->i_state &I_WB_SWITCH )return ; +/* +* Avoid starting new switches while sync_inodes_sb() is in +* progress. Otherwise, if the down_write protected issue path +* blocks heavily, we might end up starting a large number of +* switches which will block on the rwsem. +*/ +if (!down_read_trylock (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem)) +return ; + isw =kzalloc (sizeof (*isw),GFP_ATOMIC );if (!isw) -return ; + goto out_unlock;/* find and pin the new wb */ rcu_read_lock ();@@ -511,12 +539,14 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs(struct inod* Let's continue after I_WB_SWITCH is guaranteed to be visible. */ call_rcu (&isw->rcu_head, inode_switch_wbs_rcu_fn); -return ; + goto out_unlock; out_free:if (isw->new_wb)wb_put (isw->new_wb);kfree (isw); +out_unlock: +up_read (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); }/** @@ -893,6 +923,9 @@ fs_initcall(cgroup_writeback_init);#else /* CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK */ +static void bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static void bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (struct backing_dev_info *bdi) { } +static struct bdi_writeback *locked_inode_to_wb_and_lock_list (struct inode *inode) __releases(&inode->i_lock)@@ -2422,8 +2455,11 @@ void sync_inodes_sb(struct super_block *return ;WARN_ON (!rwsem_is_locked (&sb->s_umount)); +/* protect against inode wb switch, see inode_switch_wbs_work_fn() */ +bdi_down_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);bdi_split_work_to_wbs (bdi, &work, false);wb_wait_for_completion (bdi, &done); +bdi_up_write_wb_switch_rwsem (bdi);wait_sb_inodes (sb); }include/linux/backing-dev-defs.h +1
-0@@ -189,6 +189,7 @@ struct backing_dev_info {#ifdef CONFIG_CGROUP_WRITEBACK struct radix_tree_root cgwb_tree;/* radix tree of active cgroup wbs */ struct rb_root cgwb_congested_tree;/* their congested states */ +struct rw_semaphore wb_switch_rwsem;/* no cgwb switch while syncing */ #else struct bdi_writeback_congested *wb_congested;#endif mm/backing-dev.c +1
-0@@ -706,6 +706,7 @@ static int cgwb_bdi_init(struct backing_INIT_RADIX_TREE (&bdi->cgwb_tree,GFP_ATOMIC ); bdi->cgwb_congested_tree =RB_ROOT ; +init_rwsem (&bdi->wb_switch_rwsem); ret =wb_init (&bdi->wb, bdi,1 ,GFP_KERNEL );if (!ret) {
Signature · 2 lines
Jan Kara <jack-IBi9RG/[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR
Tejun Heo
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
Hello,
Quoted 4 lines · Jan Kara
OK, but this effectively prevents writeback from
sync_inodes_sb()to ever make inode switch wbs. Cannot that be abused in some way like making sure writeback of our memcg is "invisible" by forcing it out using sync(2)? It just looks a bit dangerous to me...
That's true. There are a couple mitigating factors tho.
* While it can delay switching during sync(2), it'll all still be recorded and the switch will happen soon if needed.
* sync(2) is hugely disruptive with or without this and can easily be used to DOS the whole system. People are working on restricting the blast radius of sync(2) to mitigate this problem, which most likely make this a non-problem too.
If you can think of a better solution, I'm all ears.
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun
Re: [PATCH v2] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
Quoted 13 lines · Tejun Heo
Hello,
Quoted 4 lines · Jan Kara
OK, but this effectively prevents writeback from
sync_inodes_sb()to ever make inode switch wbs. Cannot that be abused in some way like making sure writeback of our memcg is "invisible" by forcing it out using sync(2)? It just looks a bit dangerous to me...That's true. There are a couple mitigating factors tho.
* While it can delay switching during sync(2), it'll all still be recorded and the switch will happen soon if needed.
Quoted 6 lines
* sync(2) is hugely disruptive with or without this and can easily be used to DOS the whole system. People are working on restricting the blast radius of sync(2) to mitigate this problem, which most likely make this a non-problem too.
If you can think of a better solution, I'm all ears.
After some thinking about this I don't have a better solution. So you can add:
Honza
Signature · 2 lines
Jan Kara <jack-IBi9RG/[email protected]> SUSE Labs, CR
Tejun Heo
maintainerRe: [PATCH v2] writeback: synchronize sync(2) against cgroup writeback membership switches
Quoted 4 lines · Jan Kara
After some thinking about this I don't have a better solution. So you can add:
Acked-by Jan Kara <[email protected]>
Thanks, Jan. Jens, can you please route this through block tree?
Thanks.
Signature · 1 line
tejun