Date:	Thu, 21 Dec 2006 00:17:56 -0800
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>
To:	"Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com>
Cc:	<linux-aio@...ck.org>,
	"'Trond Myklebust'" <trond.myklebust@....uio.no>,
	"'xb'" <xavier.bru@...l.net>,
	"'Zach Brown'" <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
	<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] aio: fix buggy put_ioctx call in aio_complete

On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 23:58:43 -0800
"Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com> wrote:

> Andrew Morton wrote on Wednesday, December 20, 2006 8:06 PM
> > On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 13:49:18 -0800
> > "Chen, Kenneth W" <kenneth.w.chen@...el.com> 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 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