| 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
| ||
|
Date: Sat, 14 Jul 2012 13:00:21 +0200
From: Mike Galbraith <efault@....de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>,
Jens Axboe <jaxboe@...ionio.com>, mgalbraith@...e.com
Subject: Re: Deadlocks due to per-process plugging
I have your patch burning on my 64 core rt box. If it survives the
weekend, you should be able to replace my jbd hack with your fix..
Tested-by: Mike Galbraith <mgalbraith@...e.de>
..so here, one each chop in advance. It wouldn't dare work ;-)
On Fri, 2012-07-13 at 16:25 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Jul 2012, Jan Kara wrote:
> > On Thu 12-07-12 16:15:29, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Ah, I didn't know this. Thanks for the hint. So in the kdump I have I can
> > > > see requests queued in tsk->plug despite the process is sleeping in
> > > > TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE state. So the only way how unplug could have been
> > > > omitted is if tsk_is_pi_blocked() was true. Rummaging through the dump...
> > > > indeed task has pi_blocked_on = 0xffff8802717d79c8. The dump is from an -rt
> > > > kernel (I just didn't originally thought that makes any difference) so
> > > > actually any mutex is rtmutex and thus tsk_is_pi_blocked() is true whenever
> > > > we are sleeping on a mutex. So this seems like a bug in rtmutex code.
> > >
> > > Well, the reason why this check is there is that the task which is
> > > blocked on a lock can hold another lock which might cause a deadlock
> > > in the flush path.
> > OK. Let me understand the details. Block layer needs just queue_lock for
> > unplug to succeed. That is a spinlock but in RT kernel, even a process
> > holding a spinlock can be preempted if I remember correctly. So that
> > condition is there effectively to not unplug when a task is being scheduled
> > away while holding queue_lock? Did I get it right?
>
> blk_flush_plug_list() is not only queue_lock. There can be other locks
> taken in the callbacks, elevator ...
>
> > > > Thomas, you seemed to have added that condition... Any idea how to avoid
> > > > the deadlock?
> > >
> > > Good question. We could do the flush when the blocked task does not
> > > hold a lock itself. Might be worth a try.
> > Yeah, that should work for avoiding the deadlock as well.
>
> Though we don't have a lock held count except when lockdep is enabled,
> which you probably don't want to do when running a production system.
>
> But we only care about stuff being scheduled out while blocked on a
> "sleeping spinlock" - i.e. spinlock, rwlock.
>
> So the patch below should allow the unplug to take place when blocked
> on mutexes etc.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx
> ----
> Index: linux-stable-rt/include/linux/sched.h
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-stable-rt.orig/include/linux/sched.h
> +++ linux-stable-rt/include/linux/sched.h
> @@ -2145,9 +2145,10 @@ extern unsigned int sysctl_sched_cfs_ban
> extern int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p);
> extern void rt_mutex_setprio(struct task_struct *p, int prio);
> extern void rt_mutex_adjust_pi(struct task_struct *p);
> +extern bool pi_blocked_on_rt_lock(struct task_struct *tsk);
> static inline bool tsk_is_pi_blocked(struct task_struct *tsk)
> {
> - return tsk->pi_blocked_on != NULL;
> + return tsk->pi_blocked_on != NULL && pi_blocked_on_rt_lock(tsk);
> }
> #else
> static inline int rt_mutex_getprio(struct task_struct *p)
> Index: linux-stable-rt/kernel/rtmutex.c
> ===================================================================
> --- linux-stable-rt.orig/kernel/rtmutex.c
> +++ linux-stable-rt/kernel/rtmutex.c
> @@ -699,6 +699,11 @@ static int adaptive_wait(struct rt_mutex
> # define pi_lock(lock) raw_spin_lock_irq(lock)
> # define pi_unlock(lock) raw_spin_unlock_irq(lock)
>
> +bool pi_blocked_on_rt_lock(struct task_struct *tsk)
> +{
> + return tsk->pi_blocked_on && tsk->pi_blocked_on->savestate;
> +}
> +
> /*
> * Slow path lock function spin_lock style: this variant is very
> * careful not to miss any non-lock wakeups.
> --
> 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/
--
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