linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish

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: <CA+55aFznZFMHzGZr1ybY9wu_FuRJ-ZiJipuHM3brvHO7GybUpQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Fri, 18 Sep 2015 08:32:15 -0700
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>
Cc:	Chris Mason <clm@...com>, Dave Chinner <david@...morbit.com>,
	Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>, Josef Bacik <jbacik@...com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	linux-fsdevel <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Neil Brown <neilb@...e.de>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>,
	Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] fs-writeback: drop wb->list_lock during blk_finish_plug()

On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:23 AM, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com> wrote:
>
> It makes no sense for preemption schedule to NOT unplug, the fact that it
> doesn't is news to me as well. It was never the intent of the
> unplug-on-schedule to NOT unplug for certain schedule out events, that seems
> like very odd behavior.

Actually, even a *full* schedule doesn't unplug, unless the process is
going to sleep. See sched_submit_work(), which  will only call the
unplugging if the process is actually going to sleep (ok, so it's a
bit subtle if you don't know the state rules, but it's the
"!tsk->state" check there)

So preemption and cond_resched() isn't _that_ odd. We've basically
treated a non-sleeping schedule as a no-op for the task work.

The thinking was probably that it might be better to delay starting
the IO in case we get scheduled back quickly, and we're obviously not
actually _sleeping_, so it's likely not too bad.

Now, that's probably bogus, and I think that we should perhaps just
make the rule be that "if we actually switch to another task, we run
blk_schedule_flush_plug()".

But it should be noted that that really *does* introduce a lot of new
potential races. Traditionally, our block layer plugging has been
entirely thread-synchronous, and would never happen asynchronously.
But with preemption, that "switch to another thread" really *does*
happen asynchronously.

So making things always happen on task switch is actually fairly
dangerous, and potentially adds the need for much more synchronization
for the IO submission.

What we possibly *could* make the scheduler rule be:

 - if it's not an actual PREEMPT_ACTIVE (ie in a random place)

 - _and_ we actually switch to another thread

 - _then_ do the whole blk_schedule_flush_plug(tsk) thing.

adding some scheduler people to the explicit cc list.

That said, the "cond_resched[_lock]()" functions currently always set
PREEMPT_ACTIVE (indirectly - they use preempt_schedule_common()), so
even though those are synchronous, right now they *look* asynchronous
to the scheduler, so we'd still have to sort that out.

Ingo/Peter/Frederic? Comments?

                        Linus
--
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/