| 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
| ||
|
Message-ID: <CAFPAmTRFMHbZO86sUM+xA=HMCSixjzNt13-bz-KXv-ChRWXpCA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Sep 2011 18:03:19 +0530
From: "kautuk.c @samsung.com" <consul.kautuk@...il.com>
To: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
Cc: Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] mm: Make logic in bdi_forker_thread() straight
Sorry, I was wrong in this email. Please ignore.
This problem will still happen as the CPU executing the
wakeup_timer_fn can still
get the lock and do a wake_up_process which can set the task state to
TASK_RUNNING.
On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:41 PM, kautuk.c @samsung.com
<consul.kautuk@...il.com> wrote:
> Sorry to butt in before Jens' review but i have one small comment:
>
> On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz> wrote:
>> The logic in bdi_forker_thread() is unnecessarily convoluted by setting task
>> state there and back or calling schedule_timeout() in TASK_RUNNING state. Also
>> clearing of BDI_pending bit is placed at the and of global loop and cases of a
>> switch which mustn't reach it must call 'continue' instead of 'break' which is
>> non-intuitive and thus asking for trouble. So make the logic more obvious.
>>
>> CC: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
>> CC: Wu Fengguang <fengguang.wu@...el.com>
>> CC: consul.kautuk@...il.com
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
>> ---
>> mm/backing-dev.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
>> 1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> This should be the right cleanup. Jens?
>>
>> diff --git a/mm/backing-dev.c b/mm/backing-dev.c
>> index d6edf8d..bdf7d6b 100644
>> --- a/mm/backing-dev.c
>> +++ b/mm/backing-dev.c
>> @@ -359,6 +359,17 @@ static unsigned long bdi_longest_inactive(void)
>> return max(5UL * 60 * HZ, interval);
>> }
>>
>> +/*
>> + * Clear pending bit and wakeup anybody waiting for flusher thread startup
>> + * or teardown.
>> + */
>> +static void bdi_clear_pending(struct backing_dev_info *bdi)
>> +{
>> + clear_bit(BDI_pending, &bdi->state);
>> + smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
>> + wake_up_bit(&bdi->state, BDI_pending);
>> +}
>> +
>> static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
>> {
>> struct bdi_writeback *me = ptr;
>> @@ -390,8 +401,6 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
>> }
>>
>> spin_lock_bh(&bdi_lock);
>> - set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>> -
>> list_for_each_entry(bdi, &bdi_list, bdi_list) {
>> bool have_dirty_io;
>>
>> @@ -441,13 +450,8 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
>> }
>> spin_unlock_bh(&bdi_lock);
>>
>> - /* Keep working if default bdi still has things to do */
>> - if (!list_empty(&me->bdi->work_list))
>> - __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> -
>> switch (action) {
>> case FORK_THREAD:
>> - __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> task = kthread_create(bdi_writeback_thread, &bdi->wb,
>> "flush-%s", dev_name(bdi->dev));
>> if (IS_ERR(task)) {
>> @@ -469,14 +473,21 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
>> spin_unlock_bh(&bdi->wb_lock);
>> wake_up_process(task);
>> }
>> + bdi_clear_pending(bdi);
>> break;
>>
>> case KILL_THREAD:
>> - __set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
>> kthread_stop(task);
>> + bdi_clear_pending(bdi);
>> break;
>>
>> case NO_ACTION:
>> + /* Keep working if default bdi still has things to do */
>
> Can we acquire and release the spinlocks as below:
> spin_lock_bh(&me->bdi->wb_lock) ;
>
>> + if (!list_empty(&me->bdi->work_list)) {
>
> spin_unlock_bh(&me->bdi->wb_lock) ;
>
>> + try_to_freeze();
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + set_current_state(TASK_INTERRUPTIBLE);
>
> spin_unlock_bh(&me->bdi->wb_lock) ;
>
>> if (!wb_has_dirty_io(me) || !dirty_writeback_interval)
>> /*
>> * There are no dirty data. The only thing we
>> @@ -489,16 +500,8 @@ static int bdi_forker_thread(void *ptr)
>> else
>> schedule_timeout(msecs_to_jiffies(dirty_writeback_interval * 10));
>> try_to_freeze();
>> - /* Back to the main loop */
>> - continue;
>> + break;
>> }
>> -
>> - /*
>> - * Clear pending bit and wakeup anybody waiting to tear us down.
>> - */
>> - clear_bit(BDI_pending, &bdi->state);
>> - smp_mb__after_clear_bit();
>> - wake_up_bit(&bdi->state, BDI_pending);
>> }
>>
>> return 0;
>> --
>> 1.7.1
>>
>>
>
> That should take care of the problem I initially mentioned due to the
> wakeup_timer_fn executing
> in parallel on another CPU as the task state will now be protected by
> the wb_lock spinlock.
>
--
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