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: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 13:49:38 -0400 From: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org> To: Bart Van Assche <bart.vanassche@...disk.com> Cc: Ming Lei <tom.leiming@...il.com>, Jens Axboe <axboe@...com>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>, "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Akinobu Mita <akinobu.mita@...il.com> Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] blk-mq: Fix the queue freezing mechanism Hello, Bart. On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:35:41AM -0700, Bart Van Assche wrote: > My interpretation of the percpu_ref_tryget_live() implementation in > <linux/percpu-refcount.h> is that the tryget operation will only fail if the > refcount is in atomic mode and additionally the __PERCPU_REF_DEAD flag has > been set. Yeah and percpu_ref_kill() does both. > >Also, what does the barriers do in your patch? > > My intention was to guarantee that on architectures that do not provide the > same ordering guarantees as x86 (e.g. PPC or ARM) that the store and load > operations on mq_freeze_depth and mq_usage_counter would not be reordered. > However, it is probably safe to leave out the barrier I proposed to > introduce in blk_mq_queue_enter() since it is acceptable that there is some > delay in communicating mq_freeze_depth updates from the CPU that modified > that counter to the CPU that reads that counter. Hmmm... please don't use barriers this way. Use it only when there's a clear requirement for interlocking writer and reader pair. There isn't one here. All it does is confusing people trying to read the code. > >The only race condition that I can see there is if unfreeze and freeze > >race each other and freeze tries to kill the ref which hasn't finished > >reinit yet. We prolly want to put mutexes around freeze/unfreeze so > >that they're serialized if something like that can happen (it isn't a > >hot path to begin with). > > My concern is that the following could happen if mq_freeze_depth is not > checked in the hot path of blk_mq_queue_enter(): > * mq_usage_counter >= 1 before blk_mq_freeze_queue() is called. > * blk_mq_freeze_queue() keeps waiting forever if new requests are queued > faster than that these requests complete. Again, that doesn't happen. Thanks. -- tejun -- 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