From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=3.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDD0DC35DEE for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:07:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE9F21927 for ; Tue, 25 Feb 2020 02:07:10 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=joelfernandes.org header.i=@joelfernandes.org header.b="ZiHhh13Q" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1728792AbgBYCHJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:09 -0500 Received: from mail-qk1-f193.google.com ([209.85.222.193]:45872 "EHLO mail-qk1-f193.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1728011AbgBYCHJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:09 -0500 Received: by mail-qk1-f193.google.com with SMTP id a2so10588561qko.12 for ; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:07:08 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=joelfernandes.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3mznXbsbUvYPe8XJoSstKhdOEAESChOu2NvRTa96OnE=; b=ZiHhh13QsXN70Ie3m4A3k+ikWm/78R8O4lbb6ufEmPiNprHKas4nJapW16m4s7I3CU mj2KFCW2rDiqVgsFKSfWuO2FUK7IY0jOtPL5T4wNI1uel1sCEV4idiAq3FZ7S0xWhAY0 j4SluSDH+xbyLZ3FNnHgmFO2/2eMNYASTTDd4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=3mznXbsbUvYPe8XJoSstKhdOEAESChOu2NvRTa96OnE=; b=fEBwbzefYjDx16sD0GxdX6uUTyo4kESqkXACwcT2+J6plJmfAeiKdo4WVov7BDsMV2 NaJkNO09G0FbxMQqrFCOBGsaKyYSGOYkNLlw2MbDPgLkVCx2ww+4XRKrOyHBcVEOGPme Ouc440jRgSsWN60YqCCVxm/4YIkhc3RDQoK2VNQvgQvrlsSXNLjJVvY1ivP4RPPAC/NZ oJXASZ+9rvEjZeArPWeu9mtOn/n51b+/yka+J5JyBozCGrq0kBVzEos8lpAk3oRRd379 ef7IcTWHI9YEC6LZte+xHNLPGTc7T7O2MBowPBuyXgZVngruJMkVys5NQuSAzrtSNjL9 +weg== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAV9Ylx74ysSbf1QvaaV22wQggRZRssXDSCFkEp5BiCLpdfBTiGR MZa06Vpsw/qoEdd3zJ3zSHxmew== X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxXN2kGyj8r+eTUAi0jxwBVvuizCQ+ex4C8syV7lN0zNdne2k4oiZ5pVdfLyYXtocBcJDpgKA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:1037:: with SMTP id a23mr53404655qkk.82.1582596427646; Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:07:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost ([2620:15c:6:12:9c46:e0da:efbf:69cc]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id o127sm1850657qke.92.2020.02.24.18.07.05 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 24 Feb 2020 18:07:06 -0800 (PST) Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2020 21:07:05 -0500 From: Joel Fernandes To: Uladzislau Rezki Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" , "Theodore Y. Ts'o" , Ext4 Developers List , Suraj Jitindar Singh , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] ext4: fix potential race between online resizing and write operations Message-ID: <20200225020705.GA253171@google.com> References: <20200217160827.GA5685@pc636> <20200217193314.GA12604@mit.edu> <20200218170857.GA28774@pc636> <20200220045233.GC476845@mit.edu> <20200221003035.GC2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200221131455.GA4904@pc636> <20200221202250.GK2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200222222415.GC191380@google.com> <20200223011018.GB2935@paulmck-ThinkPad-P72> <20200224174030.GA22138@pc636> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20200224174030.GA22138@pc636> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 06:40:30PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 05:10:18PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 22, 2020 at 05:24:15PM -0500, Joel Fernandes wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 12:22:50PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 02:14:55PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 04:30:35PM -0800, Paul E. McKenney wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 19, 2020 at 11:52:33PM -0500, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2020 at 06:08:57PM +0100, Uladzislau Rezki wrote: > > > > > > > > now it becomes possible to use it like: > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > void *p = kvmalloc(PAGE_SIZE); > > > > > > > > kvfree_rcu(p); > > > > > > > > ... > > > > > > > > also have a look at the example in the mm/list_lru.c diff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I certainly like the interface, thanks! I'm going to be pushing > > > > > > > patches to fix this using ext4_kvfree_array_rcu() since there are a > > > > > > > number of bugs in ext4's online resizing which appear to be hitting > > > > > > > multiple cloud providers (with reports from both AWS and GCP) and I > > > > > > > want something which can be easily backported to stable kernels. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > But once kvfree_rcu() hits mainline, I'll switch ext4 to use it, since > > > > > > > your kvfree_rcu() is definitely more efficient than my expedient > > > > > > > jury-rig. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't feel entirely competent to review the implementation, but I do > > > > > > > have one question. It looks like the rcutiny implementation of > > > > > > > kfree_call_rcu() isn't going to do the right thing with kvfree_rcu(p). > > > > > > > Am I missing something? > > > > > > > > > > > > Good catch! I believe that rcu_reclaim_tiny() would need to do > > > > > > kvfree() instead of its current kfree(). > > > > > > > > > > > > Vlad, anything I am missing here? > > > > > > > > > > > Yes something like that. There are some open questions about > > > > > realization, when it comes to tiny RCU. Since we are talking > > > > > about "headless" kvfree_rcu() interface, i mean we can not link > > > > > freed "objects" between each other, instead we should place a > > > > > pointer directly into array that will be drained later on. > > > > > > > > > > It would be much more easier to achieve that if we were talking > > > > > about the interface like: kvfree_rcu(p, rcu), but that is not our > > > > > case :) > > > > > > > > > > So, for CONFIG_TINY_RCU we should implement very similar what we > > > > > have done for CONFIG_TREE_RCU or just simply do like Ted has done > > > > > with his > > > > > > > > > > void ext4_kvfree_array_rcu(void *to_free) > > > > > > > > > > i mean: > > > > > > > > > > local_irq_save(flags); > > > > > struct foo *ptr = kzalloc(sizeof(*ptr), GFP_ATOMIC); > > > > > > > > > > if (ptr) { > > > > > ptr->ptr = to_free; > > > > > call_rcu(&ptr->rcu, kvfree_callback); > > > > > } > > > > > local_irq_restore(flags); > > > > > > > > We really do still need the emergency case, in this case for when > > > > kzalloc() returns NULL. Which does indeed mean an rcu_head in the thing > > > > being freed. Otherwise, you end up with an out-of-memory deadlock where > > > > you could free memory only if you had memor to allocate. > > > > > > Can we rely on GFP_ATOMIC allocations for these? These have emergency memory > > > pools which are reserved. > > > > You can, at least until the emergency memory pools are exhausted. > > > > > I was thinking a 2 fold approach (just thinking out loud..): > > > > > > If kfree_call_rcu() is called in atomic context or in any rcu reader, then > > > use GFP_ATOMIC to grow an rcu_head wrapper on the atomic memory pool and > > > queue that. > > > > I am not sure if that is acceptable, i mean what to do when GFP_ATOMIC > gets failed in atomic context? Or we can just consider it as out of > memory and another variant is to say that headless object can be called > from preemptible context only. Yes that makes sense, and we can always put disclaimer in the API's comments saying if this object is expected to be freed a lot, then don't use the headless-API to be extra safe. BTW, GFP_ATOMIC the documentation says if GFP_ATOMIC reserves are depleted, the kernel can even panic some times, so if GFP_ATOMIC allocation fails, then there seems to be bigger problems in the system any way. I would say let us write a patch to allocate there and see what the -mm guys think. > > > Otherwise, grow an rcu_head on the stack of kfree_call_rcu() and call > > > synchronize_rcu() inline with it. > > > > > > > What do you mean here, Joel? "grow an rcu_head on the stack"? By "grow on the stack", use the compiler-allocated rcu_head on the kfree_rcu() caller's stack. I meant here to say, if we are not in atomic context, then we use regular GFP_KERNEL allocation, and if that fails, then we just use the stack's rcu_head and call synchronize_rcu() or even synchronize_rcu_expedited since the allocation failure would mean the need for RCU to free some memory is probably great. > > > Use preemptible() andr task_struct's rcu_read_lock_nesting to differentiate > > > between the 2 cases. > > > > If the current context is preemptable then we can inline synchronize_rcu() > together with freeing to handle such corner case, i mean when we are run > out of memory. Ah yes, exactly what I mean. > As for "task_struct's rcu_read_lock_nesting". Will it be enough just > have a look at preempt_count of current process? If we have for example > nested rcu_read_locks: > > > rcu_read_lock() > rcu_read_lock() > rcu_read_lock() > > > the counter would be 3. No, because preempt_count is not incremented during rcu_read_lock(). RCU reader sections can be preempted, they just cannot goto sleep in a reader section (unless the kernel is RT). thanks, - Joel