Re: [dm-devel] [PATCH -next v2 4/6] md: refactor idle/frozen_sync_thread() to fix deadlock

[Xiao Ni]

On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 9:29 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> 在 2023/06/14 17:08, Xiao Ni 写道:
> > On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 4:29 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> 在 2023/06/14 15:57, Xiao Ni 写道:
> >>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 3:38 PM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> 在 2023/06/14 15:12, Xiao Ni 写道:
> >>>>> On Wed, Jun 14, 2023 at 10:04 AM Yu Kuai <yukuai1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Hi,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 在 2023/06/14 9:48, Yu Kuai 写道:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In the patch, sync_seq is added in md_reap_sync_thread. In
> >>>>>>>> idle_sync_thread, if sync_seq isn't equal
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> mddev->sync_seq, it should mean there is someone that stops the sync
> >>>>>>>> thread already, right? Why do
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> you say 'new started sync thread' here?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If someone stops the sync thread, and new sync thread is not started,
> >>>>>> then this sync_seq won't make a difference, above wait_event() will not
> >>>>>> wait because !test_bit(MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING, &mddev->recovery) will pass.
> >>>>>> So 'sync_seq' is only used when the old sync thread stops and new sync
> >>>>>> thread starts, add 'sync_seq' will bypass this case.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If a new sync thread starts, why can sync_seq be different? sync_seq
> >>>>> is only added in md_reap_sync_thread. And when a new sync request
> >>>>> starts, it can't stop the sync request again?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Af first, the sync_seq is 0
> >>>>>
> >>>>> admin1
> >>>>> echo idle > sync_action
> >>>>> idle_sync_thread(sync_seq is 1)
> >>>>
> >>>> Wait, I'm confused here, how can sync_seq to be 1 here? I suppose you
> >>>> mean that there is a sync_thread just finished?
> >>>
> >>> Hi Kuai
> >>>
> >>> Yes. Because idle_sync_thread needs to wait until md_reap_sync_thread
> >>> finishes. And md_reap_sync_thread adds sync_seq. Do I understand your
> >>> patch right?
> >>
> >> Yes, noted that idle_sync_thread() will only wait if MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING
> >> is set.
> >>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Then the problem is that idle_sync_thread() read sync_seq after the old
> >>>> sync_thread is done, and new sync_thread start before wait_event() is
> >>>> called, should we wait for this new sync_thread?
> >>>>
> >>>> My answer here is that we should, but I'm also ok to not wait this new
> >>>> sync_thread, I don't think this behaviour matters. The key point here
> >>>> is that once wait_event() is called from idle_sync_thread(), this
> >>>> wait_event() should not wait for new sync_thread...
> >>>
> >>> I think we should wait. If we don't wait for it, there is a problem.
> >>> One person echos idle to sync_action and it doesn't work sometimes.
> >>> It's a strange thing.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Ok. I'll add new comment to emphasize that idle_sync_thread() won't wait
> >> for new sync_thread that is started after wait_event().
> >
> > I suggest removing this function. Without this change, it's more
> > simple and it can work well without problem. The people that echo idle
> > to sync_action needs to wait until the sync action finishes. The code
> > semantic is clear and simple.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>>> echo resync > sync_action (new sync)
> >>>>
> >>>> If this is behind "echo idle > sync_action", idle_sync_thread should not
> >>>> see that MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is set and wait_event() won't wait at all.
> >>>
> >>> `echo resync > sync_action` can't change the sync_seq. So 'echo idle >
> >>> sync_action' still waits until MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is cleared?
> >>
> >> This is not accurate, if `echo resync > sync_action` triggers a new
> >> sync_thread, then sync_seq is updated when this sync_thread is done,
> >> during this period, MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is still set, so `echo idle
> >>   >sync_action` will wait for sync_thread to be done.
> >
> > I can understand your comment, but sorry, I still can't get how
> > sync_seq works. Could you give a specific case that explains how it
> > works?
>
> Ok, the problem is that echo ilde is supposed to interrupt sync_thread
> and stop sync_thread quickly. Now that we don't hold mutex here, we
> can't prevent new sync_thread to start. For exapmle:
>
> 1) a sync_thread A is runing, MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is set;
>
> 2) echo idle, A will be interrupted, mutex is not hold and
> idle_sync_thread() is waiting for MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING to be cleared.
>
> 3) A is interrupted, it'll clear MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING and try to wakeup
> idle_sync_thread(), however, before idle_sync_thread() is woken, A can
> be done and a new sync_thread B can be started, and MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING
> will be set again.
>
> 4) idle_sync_thread() finially wake up, however, MD_RECOVERY_RUNNING is
> set and it will still waiting. And this time B won't be interrupted.

Thanks for the example. I can understand the usage of it. It's the
side effect that removes the mutex protection for idle_sync_thread.

There is a problem. New sync thread is started in md_check_recovery.
After your patch, md_reap_sync_thread is called in md_check_recovery
too. So it looks like they can't happen at the same time?

Regards
Xiao

>
> Thanks,
> Kuai
>
> --
> dm-devel mailing list
> dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel