Re: [PATCH 5/6] kmod: preempt on kmod_umh_threads_get()

Dmitry Torokhov
2017-05-25T00:45:44Z

On Thu, May 25, 2017 at 02:14:52AM +0200, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 03:27:12PM -0700, Dmitry Torokhov wrote:
> > On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 08:24:43PM -0700, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote:
> > > In theory it is possible multiple concurrent threads will try to
> > > kmod_umh_threads_get() and as such atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent) at
> > > the same time, therefore enabling a small time during which we've
> > > bumped kmod_concurrent but have not really enabled work. By using
> > > preemption we mitigate this a bit.
> > >
> > > Preemption is not needed when we kmod_umh_threads_put().
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@kernel.org>
> > > ---
> > > kernel/kmod.c | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > > 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/kernel/kmod.c b/kernel/kmod.c
> > > index 563600fc9bb1..7ea11dbc7564 100644
> > > --- a/kernel/kmod.c
> > > +++ b/kernel/kmod.c
> > > @@ -113,15 +113,35 @@ static int call_modprobe(char *module_name, int wait)
> > >
> > > static int kmod_umh_threads_get(void)
> > > {
> > > + int ret = 0;
> > > +
> > > + /*
> > > + * Disabling preemption makes sure that we are not rescheduled here
> > > + *
> > > + * Also preemption helps kmod_concurrent is not increased by mistake
> > > + * for too long given in theory two concurrent threads could race on
> > > + * atomic_inc() before we atomic_read() -- we know that's possible
> > > + * and but we don't care, this is not used for object accounting and
> > > + * is just a subjective threshold. The alternative is a lock.
> > > + */
> > > + preempt_disable();
> > > atomic_inc(&kmod_concurrent);
> > > if (atomic_read(&kmod_concurrent) <= max_modprobes)
> >
> > That is very "fancy" way to basically say:
> >
> > if (atomic_inc_return(&kmod_concurrent) <= max_modprobes)
>
> Do you mean to combine the atomic_inc() and atomic_read() in one as you noted
> (as that is not a change in this patch), *or* that using a memory barrier here
> with atomic_inc_return() should suffice to address the same and avoid an
> explicit preemption enable / disable ?

I am saying that atomic_inc_return() will avoid situation where you have
more than one threads incrementing the counter and believing that they
are [not] allowed to start modprobe.

I have no idea why you think preempt_disable() would help here. It only
ensures that current thread will not be preempted between the point
where you update the counter and where you check the result. It does not
stop interrupts nor does it affect other threads that might be updating
the same counter.

Thanks.

--
Dmitry