Andrew Morton wrote on Thursday, December 21, 2006 12:18 AM
> 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.
I should've quoted the original bug report (kicking myself for those
fat fingers!): http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=116599593200888&w=2
The bug manifested from an expectation that __put_ioctx can be called
in the softirq context, but it really shouldn't. Normally, aio_complete
will not decrement last ref count on ioctx, but under stressed system,
it might.
> > 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.
Yes, I agree and I would like to bring your patch on "DEFINE_WAIT..." back
too. I will run that experiment.
> > 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.
Yeah, correctness absolutely over rule optimization. I just hope I can
find a way to satisfy both.
> > 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.
I think I'm going to abandon this whole synchronize thing and going to
put the wake up call inside ioctx_lock spin lock along with the other
patch you mentioned above in the waiter path. On top of that, I have
another patch attempts to perform wake-up only when the waiter can truly
proceed in aio_read_evt so dribbling I/O completion doesn't inefficiently
waking up waiter too frequently and only to have waiter put back to sleep
again. I will dig that up and experiment.
-
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]
