linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] blk-mq: replace timeout synchronization with a RCU and generation based scheme

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2017 22:54:04 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To:     Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
Cc:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@...com" <kernel-team@...com>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>,
        "osandov@...com" <osandov@...com>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] blk-mq: replace timeout synchronization with a RCU
 and generation based scheme

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 09:42:48PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 21:20 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 06:51:11PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > > +	write_seqcount_begin(&rq->gstate_seq);
> > > > +	blk_mq_rq_update_state(rq, MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT);
> > > > +	blk_add_timer(rq);
> > > > +	write_seqcount_end(&rq->gstate_seq);
> > > 
> > > My understanding is that both write_seqcount_begin() and write_seqcount_end()
> > > trigger a write memory barrier. Is a seqcount really faster than a spinlock?
> > 
> > Yes lots, no atomic operations and no waiting.
> > 
> > The only constraint for write_seqlock is that there must not be any
> > concurrency.
> > 
> > But now that I look at this again, TJ, why can't the below happen?
> > 
> > 	write_seqlock_begin();
> > 	blk_mq_rq_update_state(rq, IN_FLIGHT);
> > 	blk_add_timer(rq);
> > 	<timer-irq>
> > 		read_seqcount_begin()
> > 			while (seq & 1)
> > 				cpurelax();
> > 		// life-lock
> > 	</timer-irq>
> > 	write_seqlock_end();
> 
> Hello Peter,
> 
> Some time ago the block layer was changed to handle timeouts in thread context
> instead of interrupt context. See also commit 287922eb0b18 ("block: defer
> timeouts to a workqueue").

That only makes it a little better:

	Task-A					Worker

	write_seqcount_begin()
	blk_mq_rw_update_state(rq, IN_FLIGHT)
	blk_add_timer(rq)
	<timer>
		schedule_work()
	</timer>
	<context-switch to worker>
						read_seqcount_begin()
							while(seq & 1)
								cpu_relax();


Now normally this isn't fatal because Worker will simply spin its entire
time slice away and we'll eventually schedule our Task-A back in, which
will complete the seqcount and things will work.

But if, for some reason, our Worker was to have RT priority higher than
our Task-A we'd be up some creek without no paddles.

We don't happen to have preemption of IRQs off here? That would fix
things nicely.