On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 03:30:45PM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2020 at 06:06:06AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 27, 2020 at 10:01:14AM -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2020 at 08:09:05AM +0800, Liu Bo wrote:
> > >
> > > [..]
> > > > > +/*
> > > > > + * Find first mapping in the tree and free it and return it. Do not
> > > > > add
> > > > > + * it back to free pool. If fault == true, this function should be
> > > > > called
> > > > > + * with fi->i_mmap_sem held.
> > > > > + */
> > > > > +static struct fuse_dax_mapping *inode_reclaim_one_dmap(struct
> > > > > fuse_conn *fc,
> > > > > + struct inode
> > > > > *inode,
> > > > > + bool fault)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> > > > > + struct fuse_dax_mapping *dmap;
> > > > > + int ret;
> > > > > +
> > > > > + if (!fault)
> > > > > + down_write(&fi->i_mmap_sem);
> > > > > +
> > > > > + /*
> > > > > + * Make sure there are no references to inode pages using
> > > > > + * get_user_pages()
> > > > > + */
> > > > > + ret = fuse_break_dax_layouts(inode, 0, 0);
> > > >
> > > > Hi Vivek,
> > > >
> > > > This patch is enabling inline reclaim for fault path, but fault path
> > > > has already holds a locked exceptional entry which I believe the above
> > > > fuse_break_dax_layouts() needs to wait for, can you please elaborate
> > > > on how this can be avoided?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hi Liubo,
> > >
> > > Can you please point to the exact lock you are referring to. I will
> > > check it out. Once we got rid of needing to take inode lock in
> > > reclaim path, that opended the door to do inline reclaim in fault
> > > path as well. But I was not aware of this exceptional entry lock.
> >
> > Hi Vivek,
> >
> > dax_iomap_{pte,pmd}_fault has called grab_mapping_entry to get a
> > locked entry, when this fault gets into inline reclaim, would
> > fuse_break_dax_layouts wait for the locked exceptional entry which is
> > locked in dax_iomap_{pte,pmd}_fault?
>
> Hi Liu Bo,
>
> This is a good point. Indeed it can deadlock the way code is written
> currently.
>
It's 100% reproducible on 4.19, but not on 5.x which has xarray for
dax_layout_busy_page.
It was weird that on 5.x kernel the deadlock is gone, it turned out
that xarray search in dax_layout_busy_page simply skips the empty
locked exceptional entry, I didn't get deeper to find out whether it's
reasonable, but with that 5.x doesn't run to deadlock.
thanks,
liubo
> Currently we are calling fuse_break_dax_layouts() on the whole file
> in memory inline reclaim path. I am thinking of changing that. Instead,
> find a mapped memory range and file offset and call
> fuse_break_dax_layouts() only on that range (2MB). This should ensure
> that we don't try to break dax layout in the range where we are holding
> exceptional entry lock and avoid deadlock possibility.
>
> This also has added benefit that we don't have to unmap the whole
> file in an attempt to reclaim one memory range. We will unmap only
> a portion of file and that should be good from performance point of
> view.
>
> Here is proof of concept patch which applies on top of my internal
> tree.
>
> ---
> fs/fuse/file.c | 72
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
> 1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> Index: redhat-linux/fs/fuse/file.c
> ===================================================================
> --- redhat-linux.orig/fs/fuse/file.c 2020-04-14 13:47:19.493780528 -0400
> +++ redhat-linux/fs/fuse/file.c 2020-04-14 14:58:26.814079643 -0400
> @@ -4297,13 +4297,13 @@ static int fuse_break_dax_layouts(struct
> return ret;
> }
>
> -/* Find first mapping in the tree and free it. */
> -static struct fuse_dax_mapping *
> -inode_reclaim_one_dmap_locked(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode)
> +/* Find first mapped dmap for an inode and return file offset. Caller needs
> + * to hold inode->i_dmap_sem lock either shared or exclusive. */
> +static struct fuse_dax_mapping *inode_lookup_first_dmap(struct fuse_conn *fc,
> + struct inode *inode)
> {
> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> struct fuse_dax_mapping *dmap;
> - int ret;
>
> for (dmap = fuse_dax_interval_tree_iter_first(&fi->dmap_tree, 0, -1);
> dmap;
> @@ -4312,18 +4312,6 @@ inode_reclaim_one_dmap_locked(struct fus
> if (refcount_read(&dmap->refcnt) > 1)
> continue;
>
> - ret = reclaim_one_dmap_locked(fc, inode, dmap);
> - if (ret < 0)
> - return ERR_PTR(ret);
> -
> - /* Clean up dmap. Do not add back to free list */
> - dmap_remove_busy_list(fc, dmap);
> - dmap->inode = NULL;
> - dmap->start = dmap->end = 0;
> -
> - pr_debug("fuse: %s: reclaimed memory range. inode=%px,"
> - " window_offset=0x%llx, length=0x%llx\n", __func__,
> - inode, dmap->window_offset, dmap->length);
> return dmap;
> }
>
> @@ -4335,30 +4323,70 @@ inode_reclaim_one_dmap_locked(struct fus
> * it back to free pool. If fault == true, this function should be called
> * with fi->i_mmap_sem held.
> */
> -static struct fuse_dax_mapping *inode_reclaim_one_dmap(struct fuse_conn *fc,
> - struct inode *inode,
> - bool fault)
> +static struct fuse_dax_mapping *
> +inode_inline_reclaim_one_dmap(struct fuse_conn *fc, struct inode *inode,
> + bool fault)
> {
> struct fuse_inode *fi = get_fuse_inode(inode);
> struct fuse_dax_mapping *dmap;
> + u64 dmap_start, dmap_end;
> int ret;
>
> if (!fault)
> down_write(&fi->i_mmap_sem);
>
> + /* Lookup a dmap and corresponding file offset to reclaim. */
> + down_read(&fi->i_dmap_sem);
> + dmap = inode_lookup_first_dmap(fc, inode);
> + if (dmap) {
> + dmap_start = dmap->start;
> + dmap_end = dmap->end;
> + }
> + up_read(&fi->i_dmap_sem);
> +
> + if (!dmap)
> + goto out_mmap_sem;
> /*
> * Make sure there are no references to inode pages using
> * get_user_pages()
> */
> - ret = fuse_break_dax_layouts(inode, 0, 0);
> + ret = fuse_break_dax_layouts(inode, dmap_start, dmap_end);
> if (ret) {
> printk("virtio_fs: fuse_break_dax_layouts() failed. err=%d\n",
> ret);
> dmap = ERR_PTR(ret);
> goto out_mmap_sem;
> }
> +
> down_write(&fi->i_dmap_sem);
> - dmap = inode_reclaim_one_dmap_locked(fc, inode);
> + dmap = fuse_dax_interval_tree_iter_first(&fi->dmap_tree, dmap_start,
> + dmap_start);
> + /* Range already got reclaimed by somebody else */
> + if (!dmap)
> + goto out_write_dmap_sem;
> +
> + /* still in use. */
> + if (refcount_read(&dmap->refcnt) > 1) {
> + dmap = NULL;
> + goto out_write_dmap_sem;
> + }
> +
> + ret = reclaim_one_dmap_locked(fc, inode, dmap);
> + if (ret < 0) {
> + dmap = NULL;
> + goto out_write_dmap_sem;
> + }
> +
> + /* Clean up dmap. Do not add back to free list */
> + dmap_remove_busy_list(fc, dmap);
> + dmap->inode = NULL;
> + dmap->start = dmap->end = 0;
> +
> + pr_debug("fuse: %s: inline reclaimed memory range. inode=%px,"
> + " window_offset=0x%llx, length=0x%llx\n", __func__,
> + inode, dmap->window_offset, dmap->length);
> +
> +out_write_dmap_sem:
> up_write(&fi->i_dmap_sem);
> out_mmap_sem:
> if (!fault)
> @@ -4379,7 +4407,7 @@ static struct fuse_dax_mapping *alloc_da
> return dmap;
>
> if (fi->nr_dmaps) {
> - dmap = inode_reclaim_one_dmap(fc, inode, fault);
> + dmap = inode_inline_reclaim_one_dmap(fc, inode, fault);
> if (dmap)
> return dmap;
> /* If we could not reclaim a mapping because it
>
_______________________________________________
Virtio-fs mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/virtio-fs
