linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] io-controller: Add io group reference handling for request

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <e98e18940905081206o254f3577u5909a73c98e6b24a@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 8 May 2009 12:06:22 -0700
From:	Nauman Rafique <nauman@...gle.com>
To:	Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com>
Cc:	Gui Jianfeng <guijianfeng@...fujitsu.com>, dpshah@...gle.com,
	lizf@...fujitsu.com, mikew@...gle.com, fchecconi@...il.com,
	paolo.valente@...more.it, jens.axboe@...cle.com,
	ryov@...inux.co.jp, fernando@....ntt.co.jp, s-uchida@...jp.nec.com,
	taka@...inux.co.jp, jmoyer@...hat.com, dhaval@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
	containers@...ts.linux-foundation.org, righi.andrea@...il.com,
	agk@...hat.com, dm-devel@...hat.com, snitzer@...hat.com,
	m-ikeda@...jp.nec.com, akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] io-controller: Add io group reference handling for 
	request

On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 10:41:01AM -0700, Nauman Rafique wrote:
>> On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 6:57 AM, Vivek Goyal <vgoyal@...hat.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, May 08, 2009 at 05:45:32PM +0800, Gui Jianfeng wrote:
>> >> Hi Vivek,
>> >>
>> >> This patch adds io group reference handling when allocating
>> >> and removing a request.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Hi Gui,
>> >
>> > Thanks for the patch. We were thinking that requests can take a reference
>> > on io queues and io queues can take a reference on io groups. That should
>> > make sure that io groups don't go away as long as active requests are
>> > present.
>> >
>> > But there seems to be a small window while allocating the new request
>> > where request gets allocated from a group first and then later it is
>> > mapped to that group and queue is created. IOW, in get_request_wait(),
>> > we allocate a request from a particular group and set rq->rl, then
>> > drop the queue lock and later call elv_set_request() which again maps
>> > the request to the group saves rq->iog and creates new queue. This window
>> > is troublesome because request can be mapped to a particular group at the
>> > time of allocation and during set_request() it can go to a different
>> > group as queue lock was dropped and group might have disappeared.
>> >
>> > In this case probably it might make sense that request also takes a
>> > reference on groups. At the same time it looks too much that request takes
>> > a reference on queue as well as group object. Ideas are welcome on how
>> > to handle it...
>>
>> IMHO a request being allocated on the wrong cgroup should not be a big
>> problem as such. All it means is that the request descriptor was
>> accounted to the wrong cgroup in this particular corner case. Please
>> correct me if I am wrong.
>
> I think you are right. We just need to be little careful while freeing
> the request that associated request list might have gone away (rq->rl).
>
> Or we probably can think of getting rid of (rq->rl) also and while
> freeing request determine io queue and group from rq->ioq. But somehow
> I remember that I had to introduce rq->rl otherwise I was running into
> issues of request being mapped to different groups at different point
> of time hence different request list etc. Will check again..
>>
>> We can also get rid of rq->iog pointer too. What that means is that
>> request is associated with ioq (rq->ioq), and we can use
>> ioq_to_io_group() function to get the io_group. So the request would
>> only be indirectly associated with an io_group i.e. the request is
>> associated with an io_queue and the io_group for the request is the
>> io_group associated with io_queue. Do you see any problems with that
>> approach?
>
> Looks like this is also doable. Good idea. Can't think of why can't
> we get rid of rq->iog and manage with rq->ioq. There are only 1-2
> places where ioq is not setup yet and rq has been mapped to the group.
> There we shall have to carry group information or carry bio information
> and map it again to get group info.
>
> Will try to implement it and see how does it go.

I tried it, and it seems to work. I passed io_group around as function
arguments, and return values before ioq was set.

>
> Thanks
> Vivek
>
--
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/