On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:58:43 -0800
"Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:06 PM
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:49:18 -0800
> > "Chen, Kenneth W" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > Regarding to a bug report on:
> > > http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116599593200888&w=2
> > >
> > > flush_workqueue() is not allowed to be called in the softirq context.
> > > However, aio_complete() called from I/O interrupt can potentially call
> > > put_ioctx with last ref count on ioctx and trigger a bug warning. It
> > > is simply incorrect to perform ioctx freeing from aio_complete.
> > >
> > > This patch removes all duplicate ref counting for each kiocb as
> > > reqs_active already used as a request ref count for each active ioctx.
> > > This also ensures that buggy call to flush_workqueue() in softirq
> > > context is eliminated. wait_for_all_aios currently will wait on last
> > > active kiocb. However, it is racy. This patch also tighten it up
> > > by utilizing rcu synchronization mechanism to ensure no further
> > > reference to ioctx before put_ioctx function is run.
> >
> > hrm, maybe. Does this count as "abuse of the RCU interfaces". Or "reuse"?
>
> Yeah, it's abuse.
Alas, your above description doesn't really tell us what the bug is, so I'm
at a bit of a loss here.
<finds http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-aio&m=116616463009218&w=2>
So that's a refcounting bug. But it's really a locking bug, because
refcounting needs locking too.
> Problem is in wait_for_all_aios(), it is checking wait status without
> properly holding an ioctx lock. Perhaps, this patch is walking on thin
> ice. It abuses rcu over a buggy code. OTOH, I really don't want to hold
> ctx_lock over the entire wakeup call at the end of aio_complete:
>
> if (waitqueue_active(&ctx->wait))
> wake_up(&ctx->wait);
>
> I'm worried about longer lock hold time in aio_complete and potentially
> increase lock contention for concurrent I/O completion.
There is a potential problem where we deliver a storm of wakeups at the
waitqueue, and until the waked-up process actually ges going and removes
itself from the waitqueue, those wake_up()s do lots of work waking up an
already-runnable task.
If we were using DEFINE_WAIT/prepare_to_wait/finish_wait in there then the
*first* wake_up() would do some work, but all the following ones are
practically free.
So if you're going to get in there and run the numbers on this, try both
approaches.
> A quick look
> at lockmeter data I had on a 4 socket system (with dual core + HT), it
> already showing signs of substantial lock contention in aio_complete.
> I'm afraid putting the above call inside ioctx_lock will make things
> worse.
It beats oopsing.
> And synchronize_rcu fits the bill perfectly: aio_complete sets wakeup
> status, drop ioctx_lock, do the wakeup call all protected inside rcu
> lock. Then wait_for_all_aios will just wait for all that sequence to
> complete before it proceed with __put_ioctx(). All nice and easy.
Possibly it would be less abusive to use preempt_disable()/enable (with
suitable comments) and synchronize_kernel(). To at least remove the rcu
signals from in there.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
