On 2024/6/26 22:55, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 26-06-24 21:24:13, Zhang Yi wrote:
On 2024/6/26 19:22, Jan Kara wrote:
On Wed 26-06-24 15:38:42, Zhang Yi wrote:
On 2024/6/25 1:01, Jan Kara wrote:
Commit 9f356e5a4f12 ("jbd2: Account descriptor blocks into t_outstanding_credits") started to account descriptor blocks into transactions outstanding credits. However it didn't appropriately decrease the maximum amount of credits available to userspace. Thus if the filesystem requests a transaction smaller than j_max_transaction_buffers but large enough that when descriptor blocks are added the size exceeds j_max_transaction_buffers, we confuse add_transaction_credits() into thinking previous handles have grown the transaction too much and enter infinite journal commit loop in start_this_handle() -> add_transaction_credits() trying to create transaction with enough credits available.
I understand that the incorrect max transaction limit in start_this_handle() could lead to infinite loop in start_this_handle()-> add_transaction_credits() with large enough userspace credits (from j_max_transaction_buffers - overheads to j_max_transaction_buffers), but I don't get how could it lead to ran out of space in the journal commit traction? IIUC, below codes in add_transaction_credits() could make sure that we have enough space when committing traction:
static int add_transaction_credits() { ... if (jbd2_log_space_left(journal) < journal->j_max_transaction_buffers) { ... return 1; ... } ... }
I can't open and download the image Alexander gave, so I can't get to the bottom of this issue, please let me know what happened with jbd2_journal_next_log_block().
Sure. So what was exactly happening is a loop like this:
start_this_handle() blocks = 252 (handle->h_total_credits)
- starts a new transaction
- t_outstanding_credits set to 6 to account for the commit block and descriptor blocks
add_transaction_credits(journal, 252, 0) needed = atomic_add_return(252, &t->t_outstanding_credits); if (needed > journal->j_max_transaction_buffers) { /* Yes, this is exceeded due to descriptor blocks being in * t_outstanding_credits */ ... wait_transaction_locked(journal); - this commits an empty transaction - contains only the commit block return 1 goto repeat
So we commit single block transactions in a loop until we exhaust all the journal space. The condition in add_transaction_credits() whether there's enough space in the journal is never reached so we don't ever push the journal tail to make space in the journal.
mm-hm, ha, yeah, this will lead to submit an empty transaction in each loop, but I still have one question, although the journal tail can't be updated in add_transaction_credits(), I think the journal tail should be updated in jbd2_journal_commit_transaction()->jbd2_update_log_tail() since we don't add empty transactions to journal->j_checkpoint_transactions list, the loop in jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() should like this:
... jbd2_journal_commit_transaction() update_tail = jbd2_journal_get_log_tail() //journal->j_checkpoint_transactions should be NULL, tid is the //committing transaction's tid, which should be large than the //tail tid since the second loop, so this should be true after //the second loop if (freed < journal->j_max_transaction_buffers) update_tail = 0; //update_tail should be true after j_max_transaction_buffers loop
jbd2_update_log_tail() //j_free should be increased in each //j_max_transaction_buffers loop if (tid_gt(tid, journal->j_tail_sequence)) //it's true __jbd2_update_log_tail() journal->j_free += freed; //update log tail and increase j_free //j_max_transaction_buffers blocks ...
As I understand it, the journal space can't be exhausted, I don't know how it happened, am I missing something?
Well, at the beginning of the journal there are a few non-empty transactions whose buffers didn't get checkpointed before we entered the commit loop. So we cannot just push the journal tail without doing a checkpoint and we never call into the checkpointing code in the commit loop...
Oh, indeed, I see, thanks for explaining and this patch looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Zhang Yi yi.zhang@huawei.com
Thanks, Yi.