-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 45
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
in-kernel PM: use endpoints only to create subflows with received ADD_ADDR
#503
Labels
Comments
matttbe
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Mar 14, 2025
Running generic/751 on the for-next branch often results in a hang like below. They are both stack by locking an extent. This suggests someone forget to unlock an extent. INFO: task kworker/u128:1:12 blocked for more than 323 seconds. Not tainted 6.13.0-BTRFS-ZNS+ #503 "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. task:kworker/u128:1 state:D stack:0 pid:12 tgid:12 ppid:2 flags:0x00004000 Workqueue: btrfs-fixup btrfs_work_helper [btrfs] Call Trace: <TASK> __schedule+0x534/0xdd0 schedule+0x39/0x140 __lock_extent+0x31b/0x380 [btrfs] ? __pfx_autoremove_wake_function+0x10/0x10 btrfs_writepage_fixup_worker+0xf1/0x3a0 [btrfs] btrfs_work_helper+0xff/0x480 [btrfs] ? lock_release+0x178/0x2c0 process_one_work+0x1ee/0x570 ? srso_return_thunk+0x5/0x5f worker_thread+0x1d1/0x3b0 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0x10b/0x230 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x30/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> INFO: task kworker/u134:0:184 blocked for more than 323 seconds. Not tainted 6.13.0-BTRFS-ZNS+ #503 "echo 0 > /proc/sys/kernel/hung_task_timeout_secs" disables this message. task:kworker/u134:0 state:D stack:0 pid:184 tgid:184 ppid:2 flags:0x00004000 Workqueue: writeback wb_workfn (flush-btrfs-4) Call Trace: <TASK> __schedule+0x534/0xdd0 schedule+0x39/0x140 __lock_extent+0x31b/0x380 [btrfs] ? __pfx_autoremove_wake_function+0x10/0x10 find_lock_delalloc_range+0xdb/0x260 [btrfs] writepage_delalloc+0x12f/0x500 [btrfs] ? srso_return_thunk+0x5/0x5f extent_write_cache_pages+0x232/0x840 [btrfs] btrfs_writepages+0x72/0x130 [btrfs] do_writepages+0xe7/0x260 ? srso_return_thunk+0x5/0x5f ? lock_acquire+0xd2/0x300 ? srso_return_thunk+0x5/0x5f ? find_held_lock+0x2b/0x80 ? wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode.part.0+0x102/0x250 ? wbc_attach_and_unlock_inode.part.0+0x102/0x250 __writeback_single_inode+0x5c/0x4b0 writeback_sb_inodes+0x22d/0x550 __writeback_inodes_wb+0x4c/0xe0 wb_writeback+0x2f6/0x3f0 wb_workfn+0x32a/0x510 process_one_work+0x1ee/0x570 ? srso_return_thunk+0x5/0x5f worker_thread+0x1d1/0x3b0 ? __pfx_worker_thread+0x10/0x10 kthread+0x10b/0x230 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork+0x30/0x50 ? __pfx_kthread+0x10/0x10 ret_from_fork_asm+0x1a/0x30 </TASK> This happens because we have another success path for the zoned mode. When there is no active zone available, btrfs_reserve_extent() returns -EAGAIN. In this case, we have two reactions. (1) If the given range is never allocated, we can only wait for someone to finish a zone, so wait on BTRFS_FS_NEED_ZONE_FINISH bit and retry afterward. (2) Or, if some allocations are already done, we must bail out and let the caller to send IOs for the allocation. This is because these IOs may be necessary to finish a zone. The commit 06f3642 ("btrfs: do proper folio cleanup when cow_file_range() failed") moved the unlock code from the inside of the loop to the outside. So, previously, the allocated extents are unlocked just after the allocation and so before returning from the function. However, they are no longer unlocked on the case (2) above. That caused the hang issue. Fix the issue by modifying the 'end' to the end of the allocated range. Then, we can exit the loop and the same unlock code can properly handle the case. Reported-by: Shin'ichiro Kawasaki <[email protected]> Tested-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]> Fixes: 06f3642 ("btrfs: do proper folio cleanup when cow_file_range() failed") CC: [email protected] Reviewed-by: Qu Wenruo <[email protected]> Reviewed-by: Johannes Thumshirn <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: Naohiro Aota <[email protected]> Signed-off-by: David Sterba <[email protected]>
4 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Currently, upon the reception of an
ADD_ADDR
(and when thefullmesh
flag is not used), the in-kernel PM will create new subflows using the local address the routing configuration will pick.It sounds interesting to pick local addresses from a selected list of endpoint, and use it only once.
Use case: both the client (
C
) and the server (S
) have two addresses (a
andb
). The client establishes the connection betweenC(a)
andS(a)
. Once established, the server announces its additional addressS(b)
. Once received, the client connects to it using its second addressC(b)
. The client didn't use this addressC(b)
to establish a subflow with the server's primary addressS(a)
.In case of a 3rd address on each side (
C(c)
andS(c)
), upon the reception of anADD_ADDR
withS(c)
, the client should not pickC(b)
because it has already been used.C(c)
should then be used.Note that this situation is currently possible if
C
doesn't add any endpoint, but configure the routing in order to pickC(b)
for the route toS(b)
, and pickC(c)
for the route toS(c)
. That doesn't sound very practical.About the configuration, such endpoints could be marked with a new flag (not compatible with
fullmesh
(andsubflow
?)), using a good explicit name (TBD).If at least one endpoint with such flag is used, and they have all been used to create subflows, what should we do in case of a reception of a new
ADD_ADDR
? Maybe good to fallback toIPADDRANY
, and let the routing table finding a new local address: if the goal is to limit only to endpoints with such flag, thenip mptcp limits set add_addr_accepted X
could be used, withX
being the number of endpoints with such flag.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: