Bug 205833

On Wed, Dec 11, 2019 at 02:03:52PM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205833
> 
>             Bug ID: 205833
>            Summary: fsfreeze blocks close(fd) on xfs sometimes
>            Product: File System
>            Version: 2.5
>     Kernel Version: 4.15.0-55-generic #60-Ubuntu
>           Hardware: Intel
>                 OS: Linux
>               Tree: Mainline
>             Status: NEW
>           Severity: normal
>           Priority: P1
>          Component: XFS
>           Assignee: filesystem_xfs@kernel-bugs.kernel.org
>           Reporter: kernel.org@estada.ch
>         Regression: No
> 
> Dear all
> 
> I noticed the bug while setting up a backup with fsfreeze and restic.
> 
> How I reproduce it:
> 
>     1. Write multiple MB to a file (eg. 100MB) while after one or two MB
>     freeze
> the filesystem from the sidecar pod
>     2. From the sidecar pod, issue multiple `strace tail
>     /generated/data/0.txt`
>     3. After a couple of tries strace shows that the `read(...)` works but
> `close(...)` hangs
>     4. From now on all `read(...)` operations are blocked until the freeze is
> lifted
> 

I'm not familiar with your user environment, but it sounds like the use
case is essentially to read a file concurrently being written to and
freeze the fs. From there, you're expecting the readers to exit but
instead observe them blocked on close().

The ceaveat to note here is that close() is not necessarily a read-only
operation from the perspective of XFS internals. A close() (or
->release() from the fs perspective) can do things like truncate
post-eof block allocation, which requires a transaction and thus blocks
on a frozen fs. To confirm, could you post a stack trace of one of your
blocked reader tasks (i.e. 'cat /proc/<pid>/stack')?

I'm not necessarily sure blocking here is a bug if that is the
situation. We most likely wouldn't want to skip post-eof truncation on a
file simply because the fs was frozen. That said, I thought Dave had
proposed patches at one point to mitigate free space fragmentation side
effects of post-eof truncation, and one such patch was to skip the
truncation on read-only fds. I'll have to dig around or perhaps Dave can
chime in, but I'm curious if that would also help with this use case..

Brian

> System: Ubuntu 18.04.3 LTS
> CPU: Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X5650  @ 2.67GHz
> Storage: /dev/mapper/mpathXX on /var/lib/kubelet/plugins/hpe.com/... type xfs
> (rw,noatime,attr2,inode64,noquota)
> 
> I used this tool to generate the file. The number of concurrent files does
> not
> appear to matter that much. I was able to trigger the bug, tested with 2, 4
> and
> 32 parallel files:
> https://gitlab.com/dns2utf8/multi_file_writer
> 
> Cheers,
> Stefan
> 
> PS: I opened a bug at the tool vendor too:
> https://github.com/vmware-tanzu/velero/issues/2113
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are watching the assignee of the bug.
>

Hi Brian

Thank you! Here is the stack of a blocked `tail 0.txt` process:

cat /proc/276/stack
[<0>] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x18/0x30
[<0>] __percpu_down_read+0x58/0x80
[<0>] __sb_start_write+0x65/0x70
[<0>] xfs_trans_alloc+0xec/0x130 [xfs]
[<0>] xfs_free_eofblocks+0x12a/0x1e0 [xfs]
[<0>] xfs_release+0x144/0x170 [xfs]
[<0>] xfs_file_release+0x15/0x20 [xfs]
[<0>] __fput+0xea/0x220
[<0>] ____fput+0xe/0x10
[<0>] task_work_run+0x9d/0xc0
[<0>] ptrace_notify+0x84/0x90
[<0>] tracehook_report_syscall_exit+0x90/0xd0
[<0>] syscall_slow_exit_work+0x50/0xd0
[<0>] do_syscall_64+0x12b/0x130
[<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x3d/0xa2
[<0>] 0xffffffffffffffff

Your explanation matches the behaviour I see on the system.

If there was a patch, do you think it would get backported or just stay in mainline and ship with the regular releases?

Best,
Stefan

On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 09:34:34AM +0000, bugzilla-daemon@bugzilla.kernel.org wrote:
> https://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=205833
> 
> --- Comment #2 from Stefan @dns2utf8 Schindler (kernel.org@estada.ch) ---
> Hi Brian
> 
> Thank you! Here is the stack of a blocked `tail 0.txt` process:
> 
> cat /proc/276/stack
> [<0>] call_rwsem_down_read_failed+0x18/0x30
> [<0>] __percpu_down_read+0x58/0x80
> [<0>] __sb_start_write+0x65/0x70
> [<0>] xfs_trans_alloc+0xec/0x130 [xfs]
> [<0>] xfs_free_eofblocks+0x12a/0x1e0 [xfs]
> [<0>] xfs_release+0x144/0x170 [xfs]
> [<0>] xfs_file_release+0x15/0x20 [xfs]
> [<0>] __fput+0xea/0x220
> [<0>] ____fput+0xe/0x10
> [<0>] task_work_run+0x9d/0xc0
> [<0>] ptrace_notify+0x84/0x90
> [<0>] tracehook_report_syscall_exit+0x90/0xd0
> [<0>] syscall_slow_exit_work+0x50/0xd0
> [<0>] do_syscall_64+0x12b/0x130
> [<0>] entry_SYSCALL_64_after_hwframe+0x3d/0xa2
> [<0>] 0xffffffffffffffff
> 
> Your explanation matches the behaviour I see on the system.
> 
> If there was a patch, do you think it would get backported or just stay in
> mainline and ship with the regular releases?
> 

There was a patch, but it was RFC and hadn't been merged because IIRC
more investigation/testing was required to evaluate side effects. For
reference, the last post I see is the one below. In particular, patch 3
bypasses EOF block truncation from read-only file descriptors (I believe
the file writer task would still block).

https://marc.info/?l=linux-xfs&m=154951612101291&w=2

Based on the stack above, note that this is (at least for the time
being) expected behavior on XFS.

Brian

> Best,
> Stefan
> 
> -- 
> You are receiving this mail because:
> You are watching the assignee of the bug.
>

Has the fix been merged?

On the latest Arch Linux I am no longer able to reproduce the error where the second process hangs.

My test files & programs are here:

* Quick test: https://gitlab.com/dns2utf8/xfs_fsfreeze_test/
* Heavy load: https://gitlab.com/dns2utf8/multi_file_writer/

Best,
Stefan

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1474726 the same bug