linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4.4 48/76] libceph: force GFP

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: <20170329111650.GI27994@dhcp22.suse.cz>
Date:   Wed, 29 Mar 2017 13:16:51 +0200
From:   Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
To:     Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@...il.com>
Cc:     Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        stable@...r.kernel.org, Sergey Jerusalimov <wintchester@...il.com>,
        Jeff Layton <jlayton@...hat.com>, linux-xfs@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4.4 48/76] libceph: force GFP_NOIO for socket allocations

On Wed 29-03-17 13:10:01, Ilya Dryomov wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2017 at 12:55 PM, Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org> wrote:
> > On Wed 29-03-17 12:41:26, Michal Hocko wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > ceph_con_workfn
> >> >   mutex_lock(&con->mutex)  # ceph_connection::mutex
> >> >   try_write
> >> >     ceph_tcp_connect
> >> >       sock_create_kern
> >> >         GFP_KERNEL allocation
> >> >           allocator recurses into XFS, more I/O is issued
> >
> > One more note. So what happens if this is a GFP_NOIO request which
> > cannot make any progress? Your IO thread is blocked on con->mutex
> > as you write below but the above thread cannot proceed as well. So I am
> > _really_ not sure this acutally helps.
> 
> This is not the only I/O worker.  A ceph cluster typically consists of
> at least a few OSDs and can be as large as thousands of OSDs.  This is
> the reason we are calling sock_create_kern() on the writeback path in
> the first place: pre-opening thousands of sockets isn't feasible.

Sorry for being dense here but what actually guarantees the forward
progress? My current understanding is that the deadlock is caused by
con->mutext being held while the allocation cannot make a forward
progress. I can imagine this would be possible if the other io flushers
depend on this lock. But then NOIO vs. KERNEL allocation doesn't make
much difference. What am I missing?
-- 
Michal Hocko
SUSE Labs