From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com>
Cc: <matthew@wil.cx>, <linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org>,
<linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: Disable preempt when acquire i_size_seqcount write lock
Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 14:38:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20130110143813.1ba2b4fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1357702459-2718-1-git-send-email-fan.du@windriver.com>
On Wed, 9 Jan 2013 11:34:19 +0800
Fan Du <fan.du@windriver.com> wrote:
> Two rt tasks bind to one CPU core.
>
> The higher priority rt task A preempts a lower priority rt task B which
> has already taken the write seq lock, and then the higher priority
> rt task A try to acquire read seq lock, it's doomed to lockup.
>
> rt task A with lower priority: call write
> i_size_write rt task B with higher priority: call sync, and preempt task A
> write_seqcount_begin(&inode->i_size_seqcount); i_size_read
> inode->i_size = i_size; read_seqcount_begin <-- lockup here...
>
Ouch.
And even if the preemping task is preemptible, it will spend an entire
timeslice pointlessly spinning, which isn't very good.
> So disable preempt when acquiring every i_size_seqcount *write* lock will
> cure the problem.
>
> ...
>
> --- a/include/linux/fs.h
> +++ b/include/linux/fs.h
> @@ -758,9 +758,11 @@ static inline loff_t i_size_read(const struct inode *inode)
> static inline void i_size_write(struct inode *inode, loff_t i_size)
> {
> #if BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_SMP)
> + preempt_disable();
> write_seqcount_begin(&inode->i_size_seqcount);
> inode->i_size = i_size;
> write_seqcount_end(&inode->i_size_seqcount);
> + preempt_enable();
> #elif BITS_PER_LONG==32 && defined(CONFIG_PREEMPT)
> preempt_disable();
> inode->i_size = i_size;
afacit all write_seqcount_begin()/read_seqretry() sites are vulnerable
to this problem. Would it not be better to do the preempt_disable() in
write_seqcount_begin()?
Possible problems:
- mm/filemap_xip.c does disk I/O under write_seqcount_begin().
- dev_change_name() does GFP_KERNEL allocations under write_seqcount_begin()
- I didn't review u64_stats_update_begin() callers.
But I think calling schedule() under preempt_disable() is OK anyway?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-01-10 22:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-01-09 3:34 [PATCH] fs: Disable preempt when acquire i_size_seqcount write lock Fan Du
2013-01-10 22:38 ` Andrew Morton [this message]
2013-01-11 3:25 ` Fan Du
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=20130110143813.1ba2b4fd.akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--to=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=fan.du@windriver.com \
--cc=linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=matthew@wil.cx \
/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).