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:   Fri, 15 Dec 2017 10:12:50 +0800
From:   "jianchao.wang" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        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>,
        "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 12/15/2017 05:54 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> 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();
> 
Hi Peter

The current seqcount read side is as below:
	do {
		start = read_seqcount_begin(&rq->gstate_seq);
		gstate = READ_ONCE(rq->gstate);
		deadline = rq->deadline;
	} while (read_seqcount_retry(&rq->gstate_seq, start));
read_seqcount_retry() doesn't check the bit 0, but whether the saved value from 
read_seqcount_begin() is equal to the current value of seqcount.
pls refer:
static inline int __read_seqcount_retry(const seqcount_t *s, unsigned start)
{
	return unlikely(s->sequence != start);
}

Thanks
Jianchao
> 
> 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.
>