From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com>
Cc: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Eli Cohen <eli@dev.mellanox.co.il>,
general@lists.openfabrics.org, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@tv-sign.ru>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious failure under heavy load?
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2008 13:20:42 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080620112042.GE7439@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <485B50F1.2020802@gmail.com>
* Jiri Slaby <jirislaby@gmail.com> wrote:
>> do {
>> timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
>>
>> if (!timeout)
>> return timeout;
>>
>> } while (!x->done);
>>
>> return timeout;
>> }
>>
>> so if the system is very busy and x->done is not set when
>> do_wait_for_common() is entered, it is possible that the first call to
>> schedule_timeout() returns 0 because the task doing wait_for_completion
>
> Sorry, but how can schedule_timeout return 0 before the timeout
> expiration?
the point would be that due to high load, the completion wakeup happens
first, but then due to scheduling delays the timeout also occurs
(later), before the wakeup related to x->done has managed to do its
task.
I.e. due to scheduling delays we report a spurious "timeout" failure,
despite the completion occuring before the timeout. The timeout is
really intended to be related to the delay of the completion event, not
the delay of scheduling after that event happened.
seems like a well-spotted race to me, i agree it's more robust to ignore
the timeout if we can make progress on x->done, and return a 1 jiffy
'timeout remaining' value. Oleg, do you concur?
but i'd do it not like this:
> if (!timeout) {
> __remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
> - return timeout;
> + if (x->done) {
> + x->done--;
> + return 1;
> + } else {
> + return 0;
> + }
but like in the commit below. Agreed?
Ingo
-------------------->
commit bb10ed0994927d433f6dbdf274fdb26cfcf516b7
Author: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Thu Jun 19 15:04:07 2008 -0700
sched: fix wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious failure under heavy load
It seems that the current implementaton of wait_for_completion_timeout()
has a small problem under very high load for the common pattern:
if (!wait_for_completion_timeout(&done, timeout))
/* handle failure */
because the implementation very roughly does (lots of code deleted to
show the basic flow):
static inline long __sched
do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x, long timeout, int state)
{
if (x->done)
return timeout;
do {
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
if (!timeout)
return timeout;
} while (!x->done);
return timeout;
}
so if the system is very busy and x->done is not set when
do_wait_for_common() is entered, it is possible that the first call to
schedule_timeout() returns 0 because the task doing wait_for_completion
doesn't get rescheduled for a long time, even if it is woken up early
enough.
In this case, wait_for_completion_timeout() returns 0 without even
checking x->done again, and the code above falls into its failure case
purely for scheduler reasons, even if the hardware event or whatever was
being waited for happened early enough.
It would make sense to add an extra test to do_wait_for() in the timeout
case and return 1 if x->done is actually set.
A quick audit (not exhaustive) of wait_for_completion_timeout() callers
seems to indicate that no one actually cares about the return value in
the success case -- they just test for 0 (timed out) versus non-zero
(wait succeeded).
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
diff --git a/kernel/sched.c b/kernel/sched.c
index 4a3cb06..577f160 100644
--- a/kernel/sched.c
+++ b/kernel/sched.c
@@ -4405,6 +4405,16 @@ do_wait_for_common(struct completion *x, long timeout, int state)
spin_unlock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
timeout = schedule_timeout(timeout);
spin_lock_irq(&x->wait.lock);
+
+ /*
+ * If the completion has arrived meanwhile
+ * then return 1 jiffy time left:
+ */
+ if (x->done && !timeout) {
+ timeout = 1;
+ break;
+ }
+
if (!timeout) {
__remove_wait_queue(&x->wait, &wait);
return timeout;
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2008-06-20 11:21 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2008-06-19 22:04 wait_for_completion_timeout() spurious failure under heavy load? Roland Dreier
2008-06-20 6:40 ` Jiri Slaby
2008-06-20 11:20 ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-06-20 11:30 ` Peter Zijlstra
2008-06-20 14:14 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-06-20 14:32 ` Oleg Nesterov
2008-06-20 15:21 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-06-20 14:33 ` Roland Dreier
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=20080620112042.GE7439@elte.hu \
--to=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=eli@dev.mellanox.co.il \
--cc=general@lists.openfabrics.org \
--cc=jirislaby@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=oleg@tv-sign.ru \
--cc=rdreier@cisco.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