Re: [PATCH] sunrpc: remove unnecessary svc_xprt_put

J. Bruce Fields
2010-02-26T22:53:15Z

On Sat, Feb 27, 2010 at 09:33:40AM +1100, Neil Brown wrote:
>
> [I found this while looking for the current refcount problem
> that triggers a warning in svc_recv. This isn't that bug
> but is a different refcount bug - NB]

And thanks very much for looking into that, I'm worried.... Seems to
have appeared some time between v2.6.31 and v2.6.32.2. On a quick skim
commits in that range that struck me as worth a second look included
8f55f3c0a013, b0401d725334, and the 4.1 backchannel patches (3ddc8bf5f3
and preceding).

Oh, and I also have some very rough notes from when I looked at this
before, in case there's anything useful.

--b.

Re: 2.6.32.2 - WARNING: at lib/kref.c:43 kref_get+0x,23/0x2b()

Seen on: 2.6.32.2, 2.6.32.6, 2.6.32.8; probably was OK on 2.6.29.6 and
2.6.31.

Is the warning actually warning about anything that's a problem, or can
that counter by zero by design? Yes, it's actually a problem.

Is probably svc_xprt_get(xprt) in svc_recv() (only obvious kref_get I
found on a quick glance through svc_recv).
Double-check:
svc_recv+0x305/0x7e6
Note next bug is on putting a socket (that we probably
shouldn't have!?):
- BUG_ON(inode->i_state == I_CLEAR).
- Implies clear_inode() was previously called on
it.
- stack includes kref_put() call in
svc_xprt_release, which is indeed put of same
xpt_ref field that svc_xprt_get() gets.

So, most probably explanation:
- We still had a dangling reference to an xprt after putting
one. So we ended up doing another get/put pair on it later
and trying to free the same socket twice.

So, plan: look for svc_xprt_puts (after checking for other stray uses of
xpt_ref) and verify that they're all legit. And gets while we're at it:

Ignore svc_rdma for now. Those reporters that answered weren't
using rdma.

Most puts outside of rdma are in svc_xprt.c:

- svc_xprt_release (unconditional): 0 to caller (put matched
with removal from rq_xprt)
- svc_check_conn_limits(): 0 to caller
- takes an xprt off a sv_tempsocks list, gets it (and
sets XPT_CLOSE) before dropping sv_lock, then enqueues
and puts. (Note: enqueue will get, and assign to
rq_xprt, if thread found.)
- svc_age_temp_xprts: 0 to caller
- same pattern as svc_check_conn_limits().
- svc_delete_xprt: 0 to caller (put matched with removal from
xpt_list)
- if test_and_set_bit of XPT_DEAD succeeds, will
svc_xprt_put(), after calling xpo_detach, then (under
sv_lock) removing xpt_list.
- ALSO unconditionally puts once for each deferred
request it finds associated with this request. Is
that right? Yup: svc_defer() gets on success, when
assigning dr->xprt.
- svc_close_xprt:
- sets XPT_CLOSE, then if test_and_set_bit of XPT_BUSY
succeeds, gets xprt, deletes, clears BUSY, puts.
- revisit:
- puts associated xprt unconditionally.

Also some puts are in fs/nfsd/nfsctl.c, fs/nfsd/nfs4state.c,
fs/lockd/svc.c:

nfsctl.c:
ifs/nfsd/nfsctl.c:__write_ports_delxprt():
- svc_find_xprt() gets a reference; if found:
svc_close_xprt, svc_xprt_put. OK.
nfs4state.c:
free_client: svc_xprt_put(clp->cl_cb_xprt);
Looks basically correct: we take reference when we
assign that in nfsd4_create_session.

Hm. Note we copy pointer to clp->cl_cb_xprt without
taking reference? The client holds a reference,
though. Looking at cb_xprt use in client xprt code, I
can't see any references taken or dropped. This all
looks fine.

lockd/svc.c: create_lock_listener() looks innocuous.