From: Hugh Dickins <hughd@google.com>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, stable@vger.kernel.org,
Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>, Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>,
Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>, Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>,
linux-block@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 6.0 479/862] sbitmap: fix possible io hung due to lost wakeup
Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2022 08:06:26 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <174a196-5473-4e93-a52a-5e26eb37949@google.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20221019083311.114449669@linuxfoundation.org>
On Wed, 19 Oct 2022, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
>
> [ Upstream commit 040b83fcecfb86f3225d3a5de7fd9b3fbccf83b4 ]
>
> There are two problems can lead to lost wakeup:
>
> 1) invalid wakeup on the wrong waitqueue:
>
> For example, 2 * wake_batch tags are put, while only wake_batch threads
> are woken:
>
> __sbq_wake_up
> atomic_cmpxchg -> reset wait_cnt
> __sbq_wake_up -> decrease wait_cnt
> ...
> __sbq_wake_up -> wait_cnt is decreased to 0 again
> atomic_cmpxchg
> sbq_index_atomic_inc -> increase wake_index
> wake_up_nr -> wake up and waitqueue might be empty
> sbq_index_atomic_inc -> increase again, one waitqueue is skipped
> wake_up_nr -> invalid wake up because old wakequeue might be empty
>
> To fix the problem, increasing 'wake_index' before resetting 'wait_cnt'.
>
> 2) 'wait_cnt' can be decreased while waitqueue is empty
>
> As pointed out by Jan Kara, following race is possible:
>
> CPU1 CPU2
> __sbq_wake_up __sbq_wake_up
> sbq_wake_ptr() sbq_wake_ptr() -> the same
> wait_cnt = atomic_dec_return()
> /* decreased to 0 */
> sbq_index_atomic_inc()
> /* move to next waitqueue */
> atomic_set()
> /* reset wait_cnt */
> wake_up_nr()
> /* wake up on the old waitqueue */
> wait_cnt = atomic_dec_return()
> /*
> * decrease wait_cnt in the old
> * waitqueue, while it can be
> * empty.
> */
>
> Fix the problem by waking up before updating 'wake_index' and
> 'wait_cnt'.
>
> With this patch, noted that 'wait_cnt' is still decreased in the old
> empty waitqueue, however, the wakeup is redirected to a active waitqueue,
> and the extra decrement on the old empty waitqueue is not handled.
>
> Fixes: 88459642cba4 ("blk-mq: abstract tag allocation out into sbitmap library")
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@huawei.com>
> Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@suse.cz>
> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20220803121504.212071-1-yukuai1@huaweicloud.com
> Signed-off-by: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
> Signed-off-by: Sasha Levin <sashal@kernel.org>
I have no authority on linux-block, but I'll say NAK to this one
(and 517/862), and let Jens and Jan overrule me if they disagree.
This was the first of several 6.1-rc1 commits which had given me lost
wakeups never suffered before; was not tagged Cc stable; and (unless I've
missed it on lore) never had AUTOSEL posted to linux-block or linux-kernel.
Hugh
> ---
> lib/sbitmap.c | 55 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/sbitmap.c b/lib/sbitmap.c
> index 29eb0484215a..1f31147872e6 100644
> --- a/lib/sbitmap.c
> +++ b/lib/sbitmap.c
> @@ -611,32 +611,43 @@ static bool __sbq_wake_up(struct sbitmap_queue *sbq)
> return false;
>
> wait_cnt = atomic_dec_return(&ws->wait_cnt);
> - if (wait_cnt <= 0) {
> - int ret;
> + /*
> + * For concurrent callers of this, callers should call this function
> + * again to wakeup a new batch on a different 'ws'.
> + */
> + if (wait_cnt < 0 || !waitqueue_active(&ws->wait))
> + return true;
>
> - wake_batch = READ_ONCE(sbq->wake_batch);
> + if (wait_cnt > 0)
> + return false;
>
> - /*
> - * Pairs with the memory barrier in sbitmap_queue_resize() to
> - * ensure that we see the batch size update before the wait
> - * count is reset.
> - */
> - smp_mb__before_atomic();
> + wake_batch = READ_ONCE(sbq->wake_batch);
>
> - /*
> - * For concurrent callers of this, the one that failed the
> - * atomic_cmpxhcg() race should call this function again
> - * to wakeup a new batch on a different 'ws'.
> - */
> - ret = atomic_cmpxchg(&ws->wait_cnt, wait_cnt, wake_batch);
> - if (ret == wait_cnt) {
> - sbq_index_atomic_inc(&sbq->wake_index);
> - wake_up_nr(&ws->wait, wake_batch);
> - return false;
> - }
> + /*
> + * Wake up first in case that concurrent callers decrease wait_cnt
> + * while waitqueue is empty.
> + */
> + wake_up_nr(&ws->wait, wake_batch);
>
> - return true;
> - }
> + /*
> + * Pairs with the memory barrier in sbitmap_queue_resize() to
> + * ensure that we see the batch size update before the wait
> + * count is reset.
> + *
> + * Also pairs with the implicit barrier between decrementing wait_cnt
> + * and checking for waitqueue_active() to make sure waitqueue_active()
> + * sees result of the wakeup if atomic_dec_return() has seen the result
> + * of atomic_set().
> + */
> + smp_mb__before_atomic();
> +
> + /*
> + * Increase wake_index before updating wait_cnt, otherwise concurrent
> + * callers can see valid wait_cnt in old waitqueue, which can cause
> + * invalid wakeup on the old waitqueue.
> + */
> + sbq_index_atomic_inc(&sbq->wake_index);
> + atomic_set(&ws->wait_cnt, wake_batch);
>
> return false;
> }
> --
> 2.35.1
>
>
>
>
next parent reply other threads:[~2022-10-19 15:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <20221019083249.951566199@linuxfoundation.org>
[not found] ` <20221019083311.114449669@linuxfoundation.org>
2022-10-19 15:06 ` Hugh Dickins [this message]
2022-10-19 17:25 ` [PATCH 6.0 479/862] sbitmap: fix possible io hung due to lost wakeup Greg Kroah-Hartman
2022-10-19 17:37 ` Jens Axboe
[not found] ` <20221019083312.840347737@linuxfoundation.org>
2022-10-19 15:08 ` [PATCH 6.0 517/862] sbitmap: Avoid leaving waitqueue in invalid state in __sbq_wake_up() Hugh Dickins
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=174a196-5473-4e93-a52a-5e26eb37949@google.com \
--to=hughd@google.com \
--cc=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=jack@suse.cz \
--cc=linux-block@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=sashal@kernel.org \
--cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=yukuai3@huawei.com \
/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