From: Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>
To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@sisk.pl>
Subject: Re: [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending()
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 21:45:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4C323677.9040209@kernel.dk> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20100705193200.GA2917@infradead.org>
On 05/07/10 21.32, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 05, 2010 at 09:24:39PM +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
>> The oops itself looks like a recurrence of the missing RCU grace or
>> too early stack wakeup, which should be a 1-2 liner once it's found.
>
> See the previous thread. There's at least two issues:
>
> - wb_do_writeback checks work->state after it's been freed when we do
> the second test_bit for WS_ONSTACK
> - bdi_work_free accesses work->state after waking up the caller doing
> bdi_wait_on_work_done, which might have re-used the stack space
> allocated for the work item.
>
> The fix for that is to get rid of the fragile work->state stuff and the
> bit wakeups by just using a completion and using that as indicator
> for the stack wait. That's the main change the above patch does. In
> addition it also merges the two structures used for the writeback
> requests. Onl doing the completion and earlier list removal would
> be something like the untested patch below:
If those two late ON_STACK checks is the only issue left there,
why not just apply the below for 2.6.35?
diff --git a/fs/fs-writeback.c b/fs/fs-writeback.c
index 0609607..15ce6ab 100644
--- a/fs/fs-writeback.c
+++ b/fs/fs-writeback.c
@@ -90,12 +90,13 @@ int writeback_in_progress(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
static void bdi_work_free(struct rcu_head *head)
{
struct bdi_work *work = container_of(head, struct bdi_work, rcu_head);
+ int on_stack = test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state);
clear_bit(WS_INPROGRESS, &work->state);
smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
wake_up_bit(&work->state, WS_INPROGRESS);
- if (!test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state))
+ if (!on_stack)
kfree(work);
}
@@ -854,6 +855,7 @@ long wb_do_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, int force_wait)
while ((work = get_next_work_item(bdi, wb)) != NULL) {
struct wb_writeback_args args = work->args;
+ int on_stack = test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state);
/*
* Override sync mode, in case we must wait for completion
@@ -865,7 +867,7 @@ long wb_do_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, int force_wait)
* If this isn't a data integrity operation, just notify
* that we have seen this work and we are now starting it.
*/
- if (!test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state))
+ if (!on_stack)
wb_clear_pending(wb, work);
wrote += wb_writeback(wb, &args);
@@ -874,7 +876,7 @@ long wb_do_writeback(struct bdi_writeback *wb, int force_wait)
* This is a data integrity writeback, so only do the
* notification when we have completed the work.
*/
- if (test_bit(WS_ONSTACK, &work->state))
+ if (on_stack)
wb_clear_pending(wb, work);
}
--
Jens Axboe
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-07-05 19:46 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-07-05 3:44 Linux 2.6.35-rc4 Linus Torvalds
2010-07-05 8:55 ` [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending() (was: Linux 2.6.35-rc4) Ingo Molnar
2010-07-05 16:40 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-05 17:11 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-07-05 17:14 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-07-05 18:20 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-05 19:24 ` [regression] Crash in wb_clear_pending() Jens Axboe
2010-07-05 19:32 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-05 19:45 ` Jens Axboe [this message]
2010-07-05 21:19 ` Bill Davidsen
2010-07-05 23:34 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-07-06 6:25 ` Jens Axboe
2010-07-06 6:49 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-07-06 6:47 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-07-06 6:50 ` Jens Axboe
2010-07-06 6:56 ` Ingo Molnar
2010-07-07 1:47 ` Christoph Hellwig
2010-07-05 10:22 ` Linux 2.6.35-rc4 Xiaotian Feng
2010-07-09 21:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-07-05 21:25 ` Linux 2.6.35-rc4 - CONFIG_LOCALVERSION ignored? Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-07-05 0:39 ` linux-next: build failure after merge of the kbuild-current tree Stephen Rothwell
2010-07-05 21:43 ` Linux 2.6.35-rc4 - CONFIG_LOCALVERSION ignored? Michal Marek
2010-07-06 18:29 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2010-07-07 1:32 ` Stephen Rothwell
2010-07-12 16:58 ` Benny Halevy
2010-07-12 17:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2010-07-12 17:34 ` Benny Halevy
2010-07-09 14:21 ` Yet another 2.6.35 regression (AGP)? Woody Suwalski
2010-07-09 15:58 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-07-09 16:27 ` Woody Suwalski
2010-07-09 17:49 ` Jesse Barnes
2010-07-12 15:28 ` Maciej Rutecki
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=4C323677.9040209@kernel.dk \
--to=axboe@kernel.dk \
--cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=hch@infradead.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=rjw@sisk.pl \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).