[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount

To: Peter Leckie <pleckie@xxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Use atomic_t and wait_event to track dquot pincount
From: Lachlan McIlroy <lachlan@xxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 11:10:26 +1000
Cc: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx, xfs-dev@xxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <48DB4F3F.8040307@xxxxxxx>
References: <48D9C1DD.6030607@xxxxxxx> <48D9EB8F.1070104@xxxxxxx> <48D9EF6E.8010505@xxxxxxx> <20080924074604.GK5448@disturbed> <48D9F718.4010905@xxxxxxx> <20080925010318.GB27997@disturbed> <48DB4F3F.8040307@xxxxxxx>
Reply-to: lachlan@xxxxxxx
User-agent: Thunderbird (X11/20080707)
Peter Leckie wrote:

Still, don't check it in until we understand whether sv_t's are
completely broken or not...
Well I added some tracing code to the __wake_up_common, however it never tripped which made me think "are we even being woken up from the wait queue", or is someone directly waking us up from the task struct. So I had a look and found the following.

      xfs_mount_t             *mp,
      xfs_lsn_t               threshold_lsn)
      mp->m_ail.xa_target = threshold_lsn;

Which is indirectly called from xlog_grant_push_ail, which is called from various other

In fact this bug is not restricted to the aild the xfssyncd also hit this issue a number of times during todays testing where it was woken while waiting on sv_wait for the pincount to drop
to zero.

It also is woken up from a number of functions in xfs_super.c including
xfs_syncd_queue_work(), xfs_sync_worker(), xfs_fs_sync_super()

The change that introduced the wake_up on the aild was introduced from

modid: xfs-linux-melb:xfs-kern:30371a
Move AIL pushing into it's own thread

However xfssyncd has had a long history of the task being woken up from other code, so it looks like it's simply not safe for either the aild or xfssyncd to sleep on a queue assuming that
no one else will wake the processes up.

So I would say the fix I proposed is a good solution for this issue.

However there are other functions that use sv_wait and should also be fixed in a similar way so I'll
look into the other callers and prepare a patch tomorrow.

Good work Pete.  We should also consider replacing all calls to
wake_up_process() with wake_up() and a wait queue so we don't go
waking up threads when we shouldn't be.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>