linux-kernel - [PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: stop caching thread if extent_commit

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:	Thu, 26 Sep 2013 09:26:36 -0400
From:	Josef Bacik <jbacik@...ionio.com>
To:	<linux-btrfs@...r.kernel.org>
CC:	<walken@...gle.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	<mingo@...nel.org>, <peter@...leysoftware.com>,
	<akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Btrfs: stop caching thread if extent_commit_sem is contended

We can starve out the transaction commit with a bunch of caching threads all
running at the same time.  This is because we will only drop the
extent_commit_sem if we need_resched(), which isn't likely to happen since we
will be reading a lot from the disk so have already schedule()'ed plenty.  Alex
observed that he could starve out a transaction commit for up to a minute with
32 caching threads all running at once.  This will allow us to drop the
extent_commit_sem to allow the transaction commit to swap the commit_root out
and then all the cachers will start back up. Here is an explanation provided by
Igno

So, just to fill in what happens in this loop:

                                mutex_unlock(&caching_ctl->mutex);
                                cond_resched();
                                goto again;

where 'again:' takes caching_ctl->mutex and fs_info->extent_commit_sem
again:

        again:
                mutex_lock(&caching_ctl->mutex);
                /* need to make sure the commit_root doesn't disappear */
                down_read(&fs_info->extent_commit_sem);

So, if I'm reading the code correct, there can be a fair amount of
concurrency here: there may be multiple 'caching kthreads' per filesystem
active, while there's one fs_info->extent_commit_sem per filesystem
AFAICS.

So, what happens if there are a lot of CPUs all busy holding the
->extent_commit_sem rwsem read-locked and a writer arrives? They'd all
rush to try to release the fs_info->extent_commit_sem, and they'd block in
the down_read() because there's a writer waiting.

So there's a guarantee of forward progress. This should answer akpm's
concern I think.

Thanks,

Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
Signed-off-by: Josef Bacik <jbacik@...ionio.com>
---
 fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c | 3 ++-
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
index cfb3cf7..cc074c34 100644
--- a/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
+++ b/fs/btrfs/extent-tree.c
@@ -442,7 +442,8 @@ next:
 			if (ret)
 				break;

-			if (need_resched()) {
+			if (need_resched() ||
+			    rwsem_is_contended(&fs_info->extent_commit_sem)) {
 				caching_ctl->progress = last;
 				btrfs_release_path(path);
 				up_read(&fs_info->extent_commit_sem);
-- 
1.8.3.1

--
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/