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>
next parent reply other threads:[~2015-10-09 8:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <062501d10262$d40d0a50$7c271ef0$@alibaba-inc.com>
[not found] ` <56176C10.8040709@kyup.com>
[not found] ` <062801d10265$5a749fc0$0f5ddf40$@alibaba-inc.com>
2015-10-09 8:03 ` Nikolay Borisov [this message]
2015-10-12 13:40 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] ext4: Fix possible deadlock with local interrupts disabled and page-draining IPI Jan Kara
2015-10-12 14:51 ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-13 8:15 ` Jan Kara
2015-10-13 10:37 ` Nikolay Borisov
2015-10-13 13:14 ` Jan Kara
2015-10-14 9:02 ` 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 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).