[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2011 17:07:32 -0700
From: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
To: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
CC: linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] sunrpc: Fix race between work-queue and rpc_killall_tasks.
On 07/06/2011 04:45 PM, Trond Myklebust wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-07-06 at 15:49 -0700, greearb@...delatech.com wrote:
>> From: Ben Greear<greearb@...delatech.com>
>>
>> The rpc_killall_tasks logic is not locked against
>> the work-queue thread, but it still directly modifies
>> function pointers and data in the task objects.
>>
>> This patch changes the killall-tasks logic to set a flag
>> that tells the work-queue thread to terminate the task
>> instead of directly calling the terminate logic.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Ben Greear<greearb@...delatech.com>
>> ---
>>
>> NOTE: This needs review, as I am still struggling to understand
>> the rpc code, and it's quite possible this patch either doesn't
>> fully fix the problem or actually causes other issues. That said,
>> my nfs stress test seems to run a bit more stable with this patch applied.
>
> Yes, but I don't see why you are adding a new flag, nor do I see why we
> want to keep checking for that flag in the rpc_execute() loop.
> rpc_killall_tasks() is not a frequent operation that we want to optimise
> for.
I was hoping that if the killall logic never set anything that was also
set by the work-queue thread it would be lock-safe without needing
explicit locking.
I was a bit concerned that my flags |= KILLME logic would potentially
over-write flags that were being simultaneously written elsewhere
(so maybe I'd have to add a completely new variable for that KILLME flag
to really be safe.)
>
> How about the following instead?
I think it still races..more comments below.
>
> 8<----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> From ecb7244b661c3f9d2008ef6048733e5cea2f98ab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Trond Myklebust<Trond.Myklebust@...app.com>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2011 19:44:52 -0400
> Subject: [PATCH] SUNRPC: Fix a race between work-queue and rpc_killall_tasks
>
> Since rpc_killall_tasks may modify the rpc_task's tk_action field
> without any locking, we need to be careful when dereferencing it.
> + do_action = task->tk_callback;
> + task->tk_callback = NULL;
> + if (do_action == NULL) {
I think the race still exists, though it would be harder to hit.
What if the killall logic sets task->tk_callback right after you assign do_action, but before
you set tk_callback to NULL? Or after you set tk_callback to NULL for
that matter.
> /*
> * Perform the next FSM step.
> - * tk_action may be NULL when the task has been killed
> - * by someone else.
> + * tk_action may be NULL if the task has been killed.
> + * In particular, note that rpc_killall_tasks may
> + * do this at any time, so beware when dereferencing.
> */
> - if (task->tk_action == NULL)
> + do_action = task->tk_action;
> + if (do_action == NULL)
> break;
> - task->tk_action(task);
> }
> + do_action(task);
>
> /*
> * Lockless check for whether task is sleeping or not.
Thanks,
Ben
--
Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
Candela Technologies Inc http://www.candelatech.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists