All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Nikolay Borisov <kernel@kyup.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
Cc: 'linux-kernel' <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	SiteGround Operations <operations@siteground.com>,
	vbabka@suse.cz, gilad@benyossef.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Marian Marinov <mm@1h.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ext4: Fix possible deadlock with local interrupts disabled and page-draining IPI
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:30 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <561774D2.3050002@kyup.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <062801d10265$5a749fc0$0f5ddf40$@alibaba-inc.com>

On 10/09/2015 10:37 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>>> @@ -109,8 +109,8 @@ static void ext4_finish_bio(struct bio *bio)
>>>>  			if (bio->bi_error)
>>>>  				buffer_io_error(bh);
>>>>  		} while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
>>>> -		bit_spin_unlock(BH_Uptodate_Lock, &head->b_state);
>>>>  		local_irq_restore(flags);
>>>
>>> What if it takes 100ms to unlock after IRQ restored?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand in what direction you are going? Care to
>> elaborate?
>>
> Your change introduces extra time cost the lock waiter has to pay in
> the case that irq happens before the lock is released.

[CC filesystem and mm people. For reference the thread starts here:
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2056996 ]

Right, I see what you mean and it's a good point but when doing the
patches I was striving for correctness and starting a discussion, hence
the RFC. In any case I'd personally choose correctness over performance
always ;).

As I'm not an fs/ext4 expert and have added the relevant parties (please
use reply-all from now on so that the thread is not being cut in the
middle) who will be able to say whether it impact is going to be that
big. I guess in this particular code path worrying about this is prudent
as writeback sounds like a heavily used path.

Maybe the problem should be approached from a different angle e.g.
drain_all_pages and its reliance on the fact that the IPI will always be
delivered in some finite amount of time? But what if a cpu with disabled
interrupts is waiting on the task issuing the IPI?

> 
>>>> +		bit_spin_unlock(BH_Uptodate_Lock, &head->b_state);
>>>>  		if (!under_io) {
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION
>>>>  			if (ctx)
>>>> --
>>>> 2.5.0
>>>
> 

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Nikolay Borisov <kernel@kyup.com>
To: Hillf Danton <hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com>
Cc: "'linux-kernel'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Theodore Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>,
	Andreas Dilger <adilger.kernel@dilger.ca>,
	linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org,
	SiteGround Operations <operations@siteground.com>,
	vbabka@suse.cz, gilad@benyossef.com, mgorman@suse.de,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, Marian Marinov <mm@1h.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ext4: Fix possible deadlock with local interrupts disabled and page-draining IPI
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2015 11:03:30 +0300	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <561774D2.3050002@kyup.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <062801d10265$5a749fc0$0f5ddf40$@alibaba-inc.com>

On 10/09/2015 10:37 AM, Hillf Danton wrote:
>>>> @@ -109,8 +109,8 @@ static void ext4_finish_bio(struct bio *bio)
>>>>  			if (bio->bi_error)
>>>>  				buffer_io_error(bh);
>>>>  		} while ((bh = bh->b_this_page) != head);
>>>> -		bit_spin_unlock(BH_Uptodate_Lock, &head->b_state);
>>>>  		local_irq_restore(flags);
>>>
>>> What if it takes 100ms to unlock after IRQ restored?
>>
>> I'm not sure I understand in what direction you are going? Care to
>> elaborate?
>>
> Your change introduces extra time cost the lock waiter has to pay in
> the case that irq happens before the lock is released.

[CC filesystem and mm people. For reference the thread starts here:
 http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/2056996 ]

Right, I see what you mean and it's a good point but when doing the
patches I was striving for correctness and starting a discussion, hence
the RFC. In any case I'd personally choose correctness over performance
always ;).

As I'm not an fs/ext4 expert and have added the relevant parties (please
use reply-all from now on so that the thread is not being cut in the
middle) who will be able to say whether it impact is going to be that
big. I guess in this particular code path worrying about this is prudent
as writeback sounds like a heavily used path.

Maybe the problem should be approached from a different angle e.g.
drain_all_pages and its reliance on the fact that the IPI will always be
delivered in some finite amount of time? But what if a cpu with disabled
interrupts is waiting on the task issuing the IPI?

> 
>>>> +		bit_spin_unlock(BH_Uptodate_Lock, &head->b_state);
>>>>  		if (!under_io) {
>>>>  #ifdef CONFIG_EXT4_FS_ENCRYPTION
>>>>  			if (ctx)
>>>> --
>>>> 2.5.0
>>>
> 

  reply	other threads:[~2015-10-09  8:03 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-10-09  7:19 [RFC PATCH 1/2] ext4: Fix possible deadlock with local interrupts disabled and page-draining IPI Hillf Danton
2015-10-09  7:26 ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-09  7:37   ` Hillf Danton
2015-10-09  8:03     ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2015-10-09  8:03       ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-12 13:40       ` Jan Kara
2015-10-12 13:40         ` Jan Kara
2015-10-12 14:51         ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-12 14:51           ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-13  8:15           ` Jan Kara
2015-10-13  8:15             ` Jan Kara
2015-10-13 10:37             ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-13 10:37               ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-13 13:14               ` Jan Kara
2015-10-13 13:14                 ` Jan Kara
2015-10-14  9:02                 ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-14  9:02                   ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-16  8:08                 ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-16 12:51                   ` Jan Kara
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-10-08 15:31 Nikolay Borisov
     [not found] ` <CAOtvUMcrhq3epOPCEciMGq53S6rTyURAKEWhQ=NwrkF95aJ+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
2015-10-09  8:50   ` Nikolay Borisov

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=561774D2.3050002@kyup.com \
    --to=kernel@kyup.com \
    --cc=adilger.kernel@dilger.ca \
    --cc=gilad@benyossef.com \
    --cc=hillf.zj@alibaba-inc.com \
    --cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=mgorman@suse.de \
    --cc=mm@1h.com \
    --cc=operations@siteground.com \
    --cc=tytso@mit.edu \
    --cc=vbabka@suse.cz \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.