From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751204Ab1LSFAp (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:45 -0500 Received: from ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net ([150.101.137.141]:40804 "EHLO ipmail04.adl6.internode.on.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750713Ab1LSFAm (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Dec 2011 00:00:42 -0500 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: Av0EABHC7k55LOCn/2dsb2JhbAA7CKtagQaBcgEBBTocIxAIAxguFCUDIROIArZdBBOIO4M2BJR9iRuJKA Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:00:38 +1100 From: Dave Chinner To: Al Viro Cc: mengcong , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, Nick Piggin Subject: Re: [PATCH] VFS: br_write_lock locks on possible CPUs other than online CPUs Message-ID: <20111219050037.GO23662@dastard> References: <1324265775.25089.20.camel@mengcong> <20111219041142.GH2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20111219041142.GH2203@ZenIV.linux.org.uk> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 04:11:42AM +0000, Al Viro wrote: > On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 11:36:15AM +0800, mengcong wrote: > > In a heavily loaded system, when frequently turning on and off CPUs, the > > kernel will detect soft-lockups on multiple CPUs. The detailed bug report > > is at https://lkml.org/lkml/2011/8/24/185. > > > > The root cause is that brlock functions, i.e. br_write_lock() and > > br_write_unlock(), only locks/unlocks the per-CPU spinlock of CPUs that > > are online, which means, if one online CPU is locked and then goes > > offline, any later unlocking operation happens during its offline state > > will not touch it; and when it goes online again, it has the incorrect > > brlock state. This has been verified in current kernel. > > > > I can reproduce this bug on the intact 3.1 kernel. After my patch applied, > > I've ran an 8-hours long test(test script provided by the bug reporter), > > and no soft lockup happened again. > > Argh... OK, that's seriously nasty. I agree that this is broken, but > your patch makes br_write_lock() very costly on kernels build with > huge number of possible CPUs, even when it's run on a box with few > CPUs ;-/ I fixed this problem with the XFS per-cpu superblock counters (bit lock + counters in per-cpu structs) back in 2006. It basically uses a lglock-like local/global locking structure and iterates them using for_each_online_cpu(). I fixed it simply by registering a hotplug notifier and draining/reinitialising counters on the appropriate event under a global lock context. i.e. make CPU hotplug serialise against concurrent lock operations. See commit e8234a68 ("[XFS] Add support for hotplug CPUs...") Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Chinner david@fromorbit.com