public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>
To: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@gmail.com>,
	torvalds@osdl.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: 2.6.26-rc4: RIP __call_for_each_cic+0x20/0x50
Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 13:44:31 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080529114431.GZ25504@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080529112553.GE31816@linux.vnet.ibm.com>

On Thu, May 29 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 12:13:54PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > On Thu, May 29 2008, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 08:42:02AM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 29 2008, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > > > > But one additional question...
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 	static void cfq_cic_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > > > > 	{
> > > > > > 		struct cfq_io_context *cic;
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 		cic = container_of(head, struct cfq_io_context, rcu_head);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 		kmem_cache_free(cfq_ioc_pool, cic);
> > > > > > 		elv_ioc_count_dec(ioc_count);
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > 		if (ioc_gone && !elv_ioc_count_read(ioc_count))
> > > > > > 			complete(ioc_gone);
> > > > > > 	}
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Suppose that a pair of tasks both execute the elv_ioc_count_dec()
> > > > > > at the same time, so that all counters are now zero.  Both then
> > > > > > find that there is still an ioc_gone, and that the count is
> > > > > > now zero.  One of the tasks invokes complete(ioc_gone).  This
> > > > > > awakens the corresponding cfq_exit(), which now returns, getting
> > > > > > rid of its stack frame -- and corrupting the all_gone auto variable
> > > > > > that ioc_gone references.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Now the second task gets a big surprise when it tries to invoke
> > > > > > complete(ioc_gone).
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > Or is there something else that I am missing here?
> > > > > 
> > > > > No, I think that's a problem spot as well. To my knowledge, nobody has
> > > > > ever hit that. The anticipatory scheduler has the same code.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What we want to avoid here is making cfq_cic_free_rcu() a lot more
> > > > > expensive, which is why the elv_ioc_count_read() is behind that
> > > > > ioc_gone check. I'll need to think a bit on how to handle that
> > > > > better :-)
> > > > 
> > > > So how about this? Add a spinlock for checking and clearing ioc_gone
> > > > back to NULL. It doesn't matter if we make the ioc_gone != NULL
> > > > case a little more expensive, as it will only happen on cfq-iosched
> > > > module unload. And it seems the clearest way of making this safe.
> > > > The last hunk should really not be necessary, as ioc_gone wont be
> > > > set back to NULL before wait_for_completion() is entered.
> > > 
> > > Looks better!  I do have one scenario that seems troublesome, but
> > > it should be easy to fix, see below.  (Assuming it really is a
> > > problem, that is...)
> > > 
> > > 						Thanx, Paul
> > > 
> > > > An identical patch is needed in AS as well.
> > > > 
> > > > diff --git a/block/cfq-iosched.c b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > > > index d01b411..32aa367 100644
> > > > --- a/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > > > +++ b/block/cfq-iosched.c
> > > > @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ static struct kmem_cache *cfq_ioc_pool;
> > > > 
> > > >  static DEFINE_PER_CPU(unsigned long, ioc_count);
> > > >  static struct completion *ioc_gone;
> > > > +static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(ioc_gone_lock);
> > > > 
> > > >  #define CFQ_PRIO_LISTS		IOPRIO_BE_NR
> > > >  #define cfq_class_idle(cfqq)	((cfqq)->ioprio_class == IOPRIO_CLASS_IDLE)
> > > > @@ -1177,8 +1178,19 @@ static void cfq_cic_free_rcu(struct rcu_head *head)
> > > >  	kmem_cache_free(cfq_ioc_pool, cic);
> > > >  	elv_ioc_count_dec(ioc_count);
> > > > 
> > > > -	if (ioc_gone && !elv_ioc_count_read(ioc_count))
> > > > -		complete(ioc_gone);
> > > > +	if (ioc_gone) {
> > > > +		/*
> > > > +		 * CFQ scheduler is exiting, grab exit lock and check
> > > > +		 * the pending io context count. If it hits zero,
> > > > +		 * complete ioc_gone and set it back to NULL
> > > > +		 */
> > > 
> > > Suppose that at this point some other CPU does the last complete().
> > > They have set ioc_gone to NULL, so everything is fine.  But suppose
> > > that in the meantime, some other CPU sets up a cfq and then starts
> > > tearing it down.  Then ioc_gone would be non-NULL, and we would cause
> > > this new teardown to end prematurely.
> > > 
> > > If this is a real problem, one way to get around it is to have a
> > > generation number.  We capture this before doing the elv_ioc_count_dec()
> > > (alas, with a memory barrier between the capture and the elv_ioc_count_dec()),
> > > and then check it under the lock.  If it has changed, we know someone else
> > > has already done the awakening for us.  Increment the generation number
> > > in the same place that ioc_gone is set to NULL.
> > > 
> > > Seem reasonable?
> > 
> > This isn't a problem, since cfq_exit() cannot be called before
> > all block queues in the system have been detached from CFQ.
> 
> And once all block queues have been detached, no future block queues
> can ever be attached again?  Or perhaps a better way of putting it,
> once CFQ has been shut down, can it be restarted without rebooting
> the system?  If it can be restarted without reboot, then I do not
> yet see how the scenario above is avoided.

Certainly, you can modprobe cfq-iosched and switch any device to cfq
again. But I really don't see the problem in this case. Once CFQ
has exited, all tasks are detached from CFQ. They have to be, or
we could not unload the module.

> > cfq_exit() calls elv_unregister() before setting ioc_gone, so
> > when elv_unregister() has returned, CFQ is in its own little world.
> > Do we need an smp_wmb() between elv_unregister() and the ioc_gone
> > assignment to ensure this ordering as well? IIRC, the spin_lock
> > and spin_unlock in elv_unregister() isn't enough to guarentee this.
> > We are really down to splitting hairs now, but better safe than
> > sorry :-)
> 
> I believe that the spinlock takes care of that ordering issue.  I am
> instead worried about a "Rip Van Winkle" effect where a given task
> is delayed at a crucial point.  By the time it wakes back up, CFQ
> has been not only restarted, but is now in the process of being torn
> down again.  (Assuming that it can in fact be restarted without
> a reboot.)

Why would we have done the ioc dec and complete() before that task
had finished?

-- 
Jens Axboe


  reply	other threads:[~2008-05-29 11:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 37+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-04-27 22:55 2.6.25-$sha1: RIP call_for_each_cic+0x25/0x50 Alexey Dobriyan
2008-04-28 12:01 ` Andrew Morton
2008-04-28 12:04   ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-28 19:55     ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-04-29  6:21       ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-04-29  9:06         ` Jens Axboe
2008-04-30 22:12           ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-05-04 19:08             ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-04 20:15               ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-05-04 19:25                 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-04 21:17                   ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-05-10 10:37                 ` 2.6.25-$sha1: RIP __call_for_each_cic+0x20/0x50 Alexey Dobriyan
2008-05-27  5:27                   ` 2.6.26-rc4: " Alexey Dobriyan
2008-05-27 13:35                     ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-27 15:18                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-28 10:07                         ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-28 10:30                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-28 12:44                             ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-28 13:20                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-29  4:38                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-29  6:26                                   ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-29  6:42                                     ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-29  9:17                                       ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-29 10:13                                         ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-29 11:25                                           ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-29 11:44                                             ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2008-05-29 12:11                                               ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-29 12:13                                                 ` Jens Axboe
2008-05-30 11:04                                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-30 13:16                                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-30 18:34                               ` Alexey Dobriyan
2008-06-04  3:31                                 ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-06-04 18:32                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2008-06-05  4:23                                     ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-06-06 14:49                                   ` Paul E. McKenney
2008-05-28 11:52                           ` Fabio Checconi
2008-05-28 11:58                             ` Jens Axboe

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=20080529114431.GZ25504@kernel.dk \
    --to=jens.axboe@oracle.com \
    --cc=adobriyan@gmail.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
    --cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
    /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