On 04/23/2015 02:22 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 13:34:15 +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>
>> On 04/23/2015 01:16 PM, Holger Hoffstätte wrote:
>>> On Thu, 23 Apr 2015 11:28:48 +0100, Filipe Manana wrote:
>>>
>>>> There's a race between releasing extent buffers that are flagged as stale
>>>> and recycling them that makes us it the following BUG_ON at
>>>> btrfs_release_extent_buffer_page:
>>>>
>>>> BUG_ON(extent_buffer_under_io(eb))
>>>>
>>>> The BUG_ON is triggered because the extent buffer has the flag
>>>> EXTENT_BUFFER_DIRTY set as a consequence of having been reused and made
>>>> dirty by another concurrent task.
>>>
>>> Awesome analysis!
>>>
>>>> @@ -4768,6 +4768,25 @@ struct extent_buffer *find_extent_buffer(struct btrfs_fs_info *fs_info,
>>>> start >> PAGE_CACHE_SHIFT);
>>>> if (eb && atomic_inc_not_zero(&eb->refs)) {
>>>> rcu_read_unlock();
>>>> + /*
>>>> + * Lock our eb's refs_lock to avoid races with
>>>> + * free_extent_buffer. When we get our eb it might be flagged
>>>> + * with EXTENT_BUFFER_STALE and another task running
>>>> + * free_extent_buffer might have seen that flag set,
>>>> + * eb->refs == 2, that the buffer isn't under IO (dirty and
>>>> + * writeback flags not set) and it's still in the tree (flag
>>>> + * EXTENT_BUFFER_TREE_REF set), therefore being in the process
>>>> + * of decrementing the extent buffer's reference count twice.
>>>> + * So here we could race and increment the eb's reference count,
>>>> + * clear its stale flag, mark it as dirty and drop our reference
>>>> + * before the other task finishes executing free_extent_buffer,
>>>> + * which would later result in an attempt to free an extent
>>>> + * buffer that is dirty.
>>>> + */
>>>> + if (test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_STALE, &eb->bflags)) {
>>>> + spin_lock(&eb->refs_lock);
>>>> + spin_unlock(&eb->refs_lock);
>>>> + }
>>>> mark_extent_buffer_accessed(eb, NULL);
>>>> return eb;
>>>> }
>>>
>>> After staring at this (and the Lovecraftian horrors of free_extent_buffer())
>>> for over an hour and trying to understand how and why this could even remotely
>>> work, I cannot help but think that this fix would shift the race to the much
>>> smaller window between the test_bit and the first spin_lock.
>>> Essentially you subtly phase-shifted all participants and make them avoid the
>>> race most of the time, yet I cannot help but think it's still there (just much
>>> smaller), and could strike again with different scheduling intervals.
>>>
>>> Would this be accurate?
>>
>> Hi Holger,
>>
>> Can you explain how the race can still happen?
>>
>> The goal here is just to make sure a reader does not advance too fast if
>> the eb is stale and there's a concurrent call to free_extent_buffer() in
>> progress.
>
> Yes, that much I understood. I look at this change from the perspective of
> an optimizing compiler:
>
> - without the new if-block we would fall through and mark_extent_buffer
> while it's being deleted, which complains with a BUG.
>
> - the new block therefore checks for the problematic state, but then does
> something that - from a work perspective - could be eliminated (lock+unlock),
> since nothing seemimgly useful happens inbetween.
>
> -that leaves the if without observable side effect and so could be
> eliminated as well.
I don't think a lock followed by unlock without nothing in between (be
it a spinlock, mutex, or any other kind of lock) will be seen by the
compiler as a nop. Pretty sure I've seen this pattern being done in the
kernel and in many other places as mechanism to wait for something.
>
> So theoretically we have not really "coordinated" anything. That made me
> suspicious: at the very least I would have expected some kind of loop
> or something that protects/reliably delays mark_extent_buffer so that it
> really has a completion/atomicity guarantee, not just a small "bump" in
> its timeline. You said that a "real fix" would be proper refcounting -
> that's sort of what I was expecting, at least in terms of side effects.
I didn't say a "real fix" but instead a more "clean alternative" fix.
>
> Now, I understand that the block is not eliminated, but the if followed
> by the lock acquiry is not atomic. That's where - very theoretically -
> the same race as before could happen e.g. on a single core and the thread
> running free_extent_buffer is scheduled after the if but before the lock.
> We'd then get the lock, immediately unlock it and proceed to mark.
That can't happen. If that thread running free_extent_buffer() is
scheduled after the "if" and but before "lock", it will see refs == 3
and therefore decrement the ref count by 1 only and leaving the tree_ref
flag set:
void free_extent_buffer(struct extent_buffer *eb)
{
(...)
spin_lock(&eb->refs_lock);
if (atomic_read(&eb->refs) == 2 &&
test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_DUMMY, &eb->bflags))
atomic_dec(&eb->refs);
if (atomic_read(&eb->refs) == 2 &&
test_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_STALE, &eb->bflags) &&
!extent_buffer_under_io(eb) &&
test_and_clear_bit(EXTENT_BUFFER_TREE_REF, &eb->bflags))
atomic_dec(&eb->refs);
release_extent_buffer(eb);
}
>
> I don't know if any of this can actually happen! It's just that I've never
> seen a construct like this (and I like lock-free/wait-free coordination),
> so this got me curious.
>
> Thanks!
> Holger
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
