From: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
To: linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org
Cc: linux-block@vger.kernel.org, Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>,
Michael Lyle <mlyle@lyle.org>,
Junhui Tang <tang.junhui@zte.com.cn>
Subject: [PATCH v4 02/13] bcache: properly set task state in bch_writeback_thread()
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2018 22:23:55 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20180127142406.89741-3-colyli@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20180127142406.89741-1-colyli@suse.de>
Kernel thread routine bch_writeback_thread() has the following code block,
447 down_write(&dc->writeback_lock);
448~450 if (check conditions) {
451 up_write(&dc->writeback_lock);
452 set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
453
454 if (kthread_should_stop())
455 return 0;
456
457 schedule();
458 continue;
459 }
If condition check is true, its task state is set to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE
and call schedule() to wait for others to wake up it.
There are 2 issues in current code,
1, Task state is set to TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE after the condition checks, if
another process changes the condition and call wake_up_process(dc->
writeback_thread), then at line 452 task state is set back to
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, the writeback kernel thread will lose a chance to be
waken up.
2, At line 454 if kthread_should_stop() is true, writeback kernel thread
will return to kernel/kthread.c:kthread() with TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE and
call do_exit(). It is not good to enter do_exit() with task state
TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE, in following code path might_sleep() is called and a
warning message is reported by __might_sleep(): "WARNING: do not call
blocking ops when !TASK_RUNNING; state=1 set at [xxxx]".
For the first issue, task state should be set before condition checks.
Ineed because dc->writeback_lock is required when modifying all the
conditions, calling set_current_state() inside code block where dc->
writeback_lock is hold is safe. But this is quite implicit, so I still move
set_current_state() before all the condition checks.
For the second issue, frankley speaking it does not hurt when kernel thread
exits with TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE state, but this warning message scares users,
makes them feel there might be something risky with bcache and hurt their
data. Setting task state to TASK_RUNNING before returning fixes this
problem.
In alloc.c:allocator_wait(), there is also a similar issue, and is also
fixed in this patch.
Changelog:
v3: merge two similar fixes into one patch
v2: fix the race issue in v1 patch.
v1: initial buggy fix.
Signed-off-by: Coly Li <colyli@suse.de>
Reviewed-by: Hannes Reinecke <hare@suse.de>
Cc: Michael Lyle <mlyle@lyle.org>
Cc: Junhui Tang <tang.junhui@zte.com.cn>
---
drivers/md/bcache/alloc.c | 4 +++-
drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c | 7 +++++--
2 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/alloc.c b/drivers/md/bcache/alloc.c
index 6cc6c0f9c3a9..458e1d38577d 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/alloc.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/alloc.c
@@ -287,8 +287,10 @@ do { \
break; \
\
mutex_unlock(&(ca)->set->bucket_lock); \
- if (kthread_should_stop()) \
+ if (kthread_should_stop()) { \
+ set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING); \
return 0; \
+ } \
\
schedule(); \
mutex_lock(&(ca)->set->bucket_lock); \
diff --git a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
index 0ade883b6316..f1d2fc15abcc 100644
--- a/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
+++ b/drivers/md/bcache/writeback.c
@@ -564,18 +564,21 @@ static int bch_writeback_thread(void *arg)
while (!kthread_should_stop()) {
down_write(&dc->writeback_lock);
+ set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
if (!atomic_read(&dc->has_dirty) ||
(!test_bit(BCACHE_DEV_DETACHING, &dc->disk.flags) &&
!dc->writeback_running)) {
up_write(&dc->writeback_lock);
- set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
- if (kthread_should_stop())
+ if (kthread_should_stop()) {
+ set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
return 0;
+ }
schedule();
continue;
}
+ set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
searched_full_index = refill_dirty(dc);
--
2.15.1
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-01-27 18:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 24+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-01-27 14:23 [PATCH v4 00/13] bcache: device failure handling improvement Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:23 ` [PATCH v4 01/13] bcache: set writeback_rate_update_seconds in range [1, 60] seconds Coly Li
2018-02-01 21:44 ` Michael Lyle
2018-01-27 14:23 ` Coly Li [this message]
2018-02-01 21:45 ` [PATCH v4 02/13] bcache: properly set task state in bch_writeback_thread() Michael Lyle
2018-01-27 14:23 ` [PATCH v4 03/13] bcache: fix cached_dev->count usage for bch_cache_set_error() Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:23 ` [PATCH v4 04/13] bcache: quit dc->writeback_thread when BCACHE_DEV_DETACHING is set Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:23 ` [PATCH v4 05/13] bcache: stop dc->writeback_rate_update properly Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:23 ` [PATCH v4 06/13] bcache: set error_limit correctly Coly Li
2018-02-01 21:49 ` Michael Lyle
2018-01-27 14:24 ` [PATCH v4 07/13] bcache: add CACHE_SET_IO_DISABLE to struct cache_set flags Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:24 ` [PATCH v4 08/13] bcache: stop all attached bcache devices for a retired cache set Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:24 ` [PATCH v4 09/13] bcache: fix inaccurate io state for detached bcache devices Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:24 ` [PATCH v4 10/13] bcache: add backing_request_endio() for bi_end_io of attached backing device I/O Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:24 ` [PATCH v4 11/13] bcache: add io_disable to struct cached_dev Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:24 ` [PATCH v4 12/13] bcache: stop bcache device when backing device is offline Coly Li
2018-01-27 14:24 ` [PATCH v4 13/13] bcache: add stop_when_cache_set_failed to struct cached_dev Coly Li
2018-01-28 3:33 ` Pavel Goran
2018-01-28 4:32 ` Coly Li
2018-01-28 5:55 ` Re[2]: " Pavel Goran
2018-01-28 9:39 ` Coly Li
2018-01-29 12:57 ` Nix
2018-01-29 13:02 ` Coly Li
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2018-01-28 1:56 [PATCH v4 00/13] bcache: device failure handling improvement Coly Li
2018-01-28 1:56 ` [PATCH v4 02/13] bcache: properly set task state in bch_writeback_thread() Coly Li
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=20180127142406.89741-3-colyli@suse.de \
--to=colyli@suse.de \
--cc=linux-bcache@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mlyle@lyle.org \
--cc=tang.junhui@zte.com.cn \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).