Re: [RFC PATCH 2/2 with seqcount v3] reservation: add suppport for read-only access using rcu

[Maarten Lankhorst <maarten.lankhorst@canonical.com>]

op 19-05-14 15:42, Thomas Hellstrom schreef:
> Hi, Maarten!
>
> Some nitpicks, and that krealloc within rcu lock still worries me.
> Otherwise looks good.
>
> /Thomas
>
>
>
> On 04/23/2014 12:15 PM, Maarten Lankhorst wrote:
>> @@ -55,8 +60,8 @@ int reservation_object_reserve_shared(struct
>> reservation_object *obj)
>>               kfree(obj->staged);
>>               obj->staged = NULL;
>>               return 0;
>> -        }
>> -        max = old->shared_max * 2;
>> +        } else
>> +            max = old->shared_max * 2;
> Perhaps as a separate reformatting patch?
I'll fold it in to the patch that added reservation_object_reserve_shared.
>> +
>> +int reservation_object_get_fences_rcu(struct reservation_object *obj,
>> +                      struct fence **pfence_excl,
>> +                      unsigned *pshared_count,
>> +                      struct fence ***pshared)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned shared_count = 0;
>> +    unsigned retry = 1;
>> +    struct fence **shared = NULL, *fence_excl = NULL;
>> +    int ret = 0;
>> +
>> +    while (retry) {
>> +        struct reservation_object_list *fobj;
>> +        unsigned seq;
>> +
>> +        seq = read_seqcount_begin(&obj->seq);
>> +
>> +        rcu_read_lock();
>> +
>> +        fobj = rcu_dereference(obj->fence);
>> +        if (fobj) {
>> +            struct fence **nshared;
>> +
>> +            shared_count = ACCESS_ONCE(fobj->shared_count);
> ACCESS_ONCE() shouldn't be needed inside the seqlock?
Yes it is, shared_count may be increased, leading to potential different sizes for krealloc and memcpy
if the ACCESS_ONCE is removed. I could use shared_max here instead, which stays the same,
but it would waste more memory.

>> +            nshared = krealloc(shared, sizeof(*shared) *
>> shared_count, GFP_KERNEL);
> Again, krealloc should be a sleeping function, and not suitable within a
> RCU read lock? I still think this krealloc should be moved to the start
> of the retry loop, and we should start with a suitable guess of
> shared_count (perhaps 0?) It's not like we're going to waste a lot of
> memory....
But shared_count is only known when holding the rcu lock.

What about this change?

@@ -254,16 +254,27 @@ int reservation_object_get_fences_rcu(struct reservation_object *obj,
  		fobj = rcu_dereference(obj->fence);
  		if (fobj) {
  			struct fence **nshared;
+			size_t sz;
  
  			shared_count = ACCESS_ONCE(fobj->shared_count);
-			nshared = krealloc(shared, sizeof(*shared) * shared_count, GFP_KERNEL);
+			sz = sizeof(*shared) * shared_count;
+
+			nshared = krealloc(shared, sz,
+					   GFP_NOWAIT | __GFP_NOWARN);
  			if (!nshared) {
+				rcu_read_unlock();
+				nshared = krealloc(shared, sz, GFP_KERNEL)
+				if (nshared) {
+					shared = nshared;
+					continue;
+				}
+
  				ret = -ENOMEM;
-				shared_count = retry = 0;
-				goto unlock;
+				shared_count = 0;
+				break;
  			}
  			shared = nshared;
-			memcpy(shared, fobj->shared, sizeof(*shared) * shared_count);
+			memcpy(shared, fobj->shared, sz);
  		} else
  			shared_count = 0;
  		fence_excl = rcu_dereference(obj->fence_excl);


>> +
>> +        /*
>> +         * There could be a read_seqcount_retry here, but nothing cares
>> +         * about whether it's the old or newer fence pointers that are
>> +         * signale. That race could still have happened after checking
> Typo.
Oops.