lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cgroup, blkcg: prevent dirty inodes to pin dying memory cgroups
Date
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 11:18:40AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> On Tue 15-10-19 21:40:45, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 15, 2019 at 11:09:33AM +0200, Jan Kara wrote:
> > > On Thu 10-10-19 16:40:36, Roman Gushchin wrote:
> > >
> > > > @@ -426,7 +431,7 @@ static void inode_switch_wbs_work_fn(struct work_struct *work)
> > > > if (!list_empty(&inode->i_io_list)) {
> > > > struct inode *pos;
> > > >
> > > > - inode_io_list_del_locked(inode, old_wb);
> > > > + inode_io_list_del_locked(inode, old_wb, false);
> > > > inode->i_wb = new_wb;
> > > > list_for_each_entry(pos, &new_wb->b_dirty, i_io_list)
> > > > if (time_after_eq(inode->dirtied_when,
> > >
> > > This bit looks wrong. Not the change you made as such but the fact that you
> > > can now move inode from b_attached list of old wb to the dirty list of new
> > > wb.
> >
> > Hm, can you, please, elaborate a bit more why it's wrong?
> > The reference to the old_wb will be dropped by the switching code.
>
> My point is that the code in full looks like:
>
> if (!list_empty(&inode->i_io_list)) {
> struct inode *pos;
>
> inode_io_list_del_locked(inode, old_wb);
> inode->i_wb = new_wb;
> list_for_each_entry(pos, &new_wb->b_dirty, i_io_list)
> if (time_after_eq(inode->dirtied_when,
> pos->dirtied_when))
> break;
> inode_io_list_move_locked(inode, new_wb, pos->i_io_list.prev);
> } else {
>
> So inode is always moved from some io list in old_wb to b_dirty list of
> new_wb. This is fine when it could be only on b_dirty, b_io, b_more_io lists
> of old_wb. But once you add b_attached list to the game, it is not correct
> anymore. You should not add clean inode to b_dirty list of new_wb.

I see...

Hm, will checking of i_state for not containing I_DIRTY_ALL bits be enough here?
Alternatively, I can introduce a new bit which will explicitly point at the
inode being on the b_attached list, but I'd prefer not to do it.

>
> > > > +
> > > > + list_for_each_entry_safe(inode, tmp, &wb->b_attached, i_io_list) {
> > > > + if (!spin_trylock(&inode->i_lock))
> > > > + continue;
> > > > + xa_lock_irq(&inode->i_mapping->i_pages);
> > > > + if (!(inode->i_state &
> > > > + (I_FREEING | I_CLEAR | I_SYNC | I_DIRTY | I_WB_SWITCH))) {
> > > > + WARN_ON_ONCE(inode->i_wb != wb);
> > > > + inode->i_wb = NULL;
> > > > + wb_put(wb);
> > >
> > > Hum, currently the code assumes that once i_wb is set, it never becomes
> > > NULL again. In particular the inode e.g. in
> > > fs/fs-writeback.c:inode_congested() or generally unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin()
> > > users could get broken by this. The i_wb switching code is so complex
> > > exactly because of these interactions.
> > >
> > > Maybe you thought through the interactions and things are actually fine but
> > > if nothing else you'd need a big fat comment here explaining why this is
> > > fine and update inode_congested() comments etc.
> >
> > Yeah, I thought that once inode is clean and not switching it's safe to clear
> > the i_wb pointer, but seems that it's not completely true.
> >
> > One idea I have is to always release wbs using rcu delayed work, so that
> > it will be save to dereference i_wb pointer under rcu, if only it's not NULL
> > (the check has to be added). I'll try to implement this scheme, but if you
> > know in advance that it's not gonna work, please, let me know.
>
> I think I'd just drop inode_to_wb_is_valid() because once i_wb can change
> to NULL, that function is just pointless in that single callsite. Also we
> have to count with the fact that unlocked_inode_to_wb_begin() can return
> NULL and gracefully do as much as possible in that case for all the
> callers. And I agree that those occurences in mm/page-writeback.c should be
> blocked by inode being clean and you holding all those locks so you can
> warn if that happens I guess.

Yeah, it sounds good to me. I actually have a patch, which I'll post after
some more extensive testing (want to make sure I do not hit these warns).

Thank you!

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-22 01:50    [W:0.066 / U:10.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site