[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1466564475-30417-1-git-send-email-fangwei1@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 11:01:15 +0800
From: Wei Fang <fangwei1@...wei.com>
To: <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
CC: <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>, <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
<jack@...e.com>, <axboe@...nel.dk>, <tj@...nel.org>,
<linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Wei Fang <fangwei1@...wei.com>,
<stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: [PATCH v2] fs/dcache.c: avoid soft-lockup in dput()
We triggered soft-lockup under stress test which
open/access/write/close one file concurrently on more than
five different CPUs:
WARN: soft lockup - CPU#0 stuck for 11s! [who:30631]
...
[<ffffffc0003986f8>] dput+0x100/0x298
[<ffffffc00038c2dc>] terminate_walk+0x4c/0x60
[<ffffffc00038f56c>] path_lookupat+0x5cc/0x7a8
[<ffffffc00038f780>] filename_lookup+0x38/0xf0
[<ffffffc000391180>] user_path_at_empty+0x78/0xd0
[<ffffffc0003911f4>] user_path_at+0x1c/0x28
[<ffffffc00037d4fc>] SyS_faccessat+0xb4/0x230
->d_lock trylock may failed many times because of concurrently
operations, and dput() may execute a long time.
Fix this by replacing cpu_relax() with cond_resched().
dput() used to be sleepable, so make it sleepable again
should be safe.
Cc: <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Signed-off-by: Wei Fang <fangwei1@...wei.com>
---
Changes v1->v2:
- add might_sleep() to annotate that dput() can sleep
fs/dcache.c | 4 +++-
1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
diff --git a/fs/dcache.c b/fs/dcache.c
index d5ecc6e..074fc1c 100644
--- a/fs/dcache.c
+++ b/fs/dcache.c
@@ -578,7 +578,7 @@ static struct dentry *dentry_kill(struct dentry *dentry)
failed:
spin_unlock(&dentry->d_lock);
- cpu_relax();
+ cond_resched();
return dentry; /* try again with same dentry */
}
@@ -752,6 +752,8 @@ void dput(struct dentry *dentry)
return;
repeat:
+ might_sleep();
+
rcu_read_lock();
if (likely(fast_dput(dentry))) {
rcu_read_unlock();
--
1.7.1
Powered by blists - more mailing lists