linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs: direct-io: increase bio refcount as batch

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]
Message-ID: <CACVXFVM8Bs9mJZ_TTnz85wy61iyjysua-5kLkTA6tfYku=HwyA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 1 Apr 2015 10:04:44 +0800
From:	Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
To:	Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com>
Cc:	Alexander Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Linux FS Devel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs: direct-io: increase bio refcount as batch

Hi,

On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 10:02 PM, Jeff Moyer <jmoyer@...hat.com> wrote:
> Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com> writes:
>
>> Each bio is always submitted to block device one by one,
>> so it isn't necessary to increase the bio refcount by one
>> each time with holding dio->bio_lock.
>
> This patch opens up a race where a completion event can come in before
> the refcount for the dio is incremented, resulting in refcount going
> negative.  I don't think that will actually cause problems, but it
> certainly is ugly, and I doubt it was the intended design.

Could you explain why you think it is a race and a bug? When
dio->refcount is negative, dio_bio_end_*() only completes the
current BIO, which is just what the function should do, isn't it?

>
> Before I dig into this any further, would you care to comment on why you
> went down this path?  Did you see spinlock contention here?  And was
> there a resultant performance improvement for some benchmark with the
> patch applied?

It is just a minor optimization in theory, especially in case of lots of BIO
in one dio.

Thanks,
Ming Lei

>
> Cheers,
> Jeff
>
>> Signed-off-by: Ming Lei <ming.lei@...onical.com>
>> ---
>>  fs/direct-io.c |   27 +++++++++++++++++----------
>>  1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/fs/direct-io.c b/fs/direct-io.c
>> index 6fb00e3..57b8e73 100644
>> --- a/fs/direct-io.c
>> +++ b/fs/direct-io.c
>> @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ struct dio_submit {
>>       get_block_t *get_block;         /* block mapping function */
>>       dio_submit_t *submit_io;        /* IO submition function */
>>
>> +     long    submitted_bio;
>> +
>>       loff_t logical_offset_in_bio;   /* current first logical block in bio */
>>       sector_t final_block_in_bio;    /* current final block in bio + 1 */
>>       sector_t next_block_for_io;     /* next block to be put under IO,
>> @@ -121,7 +123,7 @@ struct dio {
>>       int is_async;                   /* is IO async ? */
>>       bool defer_completion;          /* defer AIO completion to workqueue? */
>>       int io_error;                   /* IO error in completion path */
>> -     unsigned long refcount;         /* direct_io_worker() and bios */
>> +     long refcount;                  /* direct_io_worker() and bios */
>>       struct bio *bio_list;           /* singly linked via bi_private */
>>       struct task_struct *waiter;     /* waiting task (NULL if none) */
>>
>> @@ -383,14 +385,9 @@ dio_bio_alloc(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
>>  static inline void dio_bio_submit(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
>>  {
>>       struct bio *bio = sdio->bio;
>> -     unsigned long flags;
>>
>>       bio->bi_private = dio;
>>
>> -     spin_lock_irqsave(&dio->bio_lock, flags);
>> -     dio->refcount++;
>> -     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dio->bio_lock, flags);
>> -
>>       if (dio->is_async && dio->rw == READ)
>>               bio_set_pages_dirty(bio);
>>
>> @@ -403,15 +400,26 @@ static inline void dio_bio_submit(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
>>       sdio->bio = NULL;
>>       sdio->boundary = 0;
>>       sdio->logical_offset_in_bio = 0;
>> +     sdio->submitted_bio++;
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>>   * Release any resources in case of a failure
>>   */
>> -static inline void dio_cleanup(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio)
>> +static inline void dio_cleanup(struct dio *dio, struct dio_submit *sdio,
>> +             bool commit_refcount)
>>  {
>> +     unsigned long flags;
>> +
>>       while (sdio->head < sdio->tail)
>>               page_cache_release(dio->pages[sdio->head++]);
>> +
>> +     if (!commit_refcount)
>> +             return;
>> +
>> +     spin_lock_irqsave(&dio->bio_lock, flags);
>> +     dio->refcount += (sdio->submitted_bio + 1);
>> +     spin_unlock_irqrestore(&dio->bio_lock, flags);
>>  }
>>
>>  /*
>> @@ -1215,7 +1223,6 @@ do_blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
>>       dio->i_size = i_size_read(inode);
>>
>>       spin_lock_init(&dio->bio_lock);
>> -     dio->refcount = 1;
>>
>>       sdio.iter = iter;
>>       sdio.final_block_in_request =
>> @@ -1234,7 +1241,7 @@ do_blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
>>
>>       retval = do_direct_IO(dio, &sdio, &map_bh);
>>       if (retval)
>> -             dio_cleanup(dio, &sdio);
>> +             dio_cleanup(dio, &sdio, false);
>>
>>       if (retval == -ENOTBLK) {
>>               /*
>> @@ -1267,7 +1274,7 @@ do_blockdev_direct_IO(int rw, struct kiocb *iocb, struct inode *inode,
>>        * It is possible that, we return short IO due to end of file.
>>        * In that case, we need to release all the pages we got hold on.
>>        */
>> -     dio_cleanup(dio, &sdio);
>> +     dio_cleanup(dio, &sdio, true);
>>
>>       /*
>>        * All block lookups have been performed. For READ requests
--
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/