linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH BUGFIX V2] block, bfq: update wr_busy

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]

Date:   Tue, 27 Jun 2017 08:09:34 +0200
From:   Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
To:     Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        ulf.hansson@...aro.org, broonie@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH BUGFIX V2] block, bfq: update wr_busy_queues if needed on a queue split


> Il giorno 19 giu 2017, alle ore 13:43, Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org> ha scritto:
> 
> This commit fixes a bug triggered by a non-trivial sequence of
> events. These events are briefly described in the next two
> paragraphs. The impatiens, or those who are familiar with queue
> merging and splitting, can jump directly to the last paragraph.
> 
> On each I/O-request arrival for a shared bfq_queue, i.e., for a
> bfq_queue that is the result of the merge of two or more bfq_queues,
> BFQ checks whether the shared bfq_queue has become seeky (i.e., if too
> many random I/O requests have arrived for the bfq_queue; if the device
> is non rotational, then random requests must be also small for the
> bfq_queue to be tagged as seeky). If the shared bfq_queue is actually
> detected as seeky, then a split occurs: the bfq I/O context of the
> process that has issued the request is redirected from the shared
> bfq_queue to a new non-shared bfq_queue. As a degenerate case, if the
> shared bfq_queue actually happens to be shared only by one process
> (because of previous splits), then no new bfq_queue is created: the
> state of the shared bfq_queue is just changed from shared to non
> shared.
> 
> Regardless of whether a brand new non-shared bfq_queue is created, or
> the pre-existing shared bfq_queue is just turned into a non-shared
> bfq_queue, several parameters of the non-shared bfq_queue are set
> (restored) to the original values they had when the bfq_queue
> associated with the bfq I/O context of the process (that has just
> issued an I/O request) was merged with the shared bfq_queue. One of
> these parameters is the weight-raising state.
> 
> If, on the split of a shared bfq_queue,
> 1) a pre-existing shared bfq_queue is turned into a non-shared
> bfq_queue;
> 2) the previously shared bfq_queue happens to be busy;
> 3) the weight-raising state of the previously shared bfq_queue happens
> to change;
> the number of weight-raised busy queues changes. The field
> wr_busy_queues must then be updated accordingly, but such an update
> was missing. This commit adds the missing update.
> 

Hi Jens,
any idea of the possible fate of this fix?

Thanks,
Paolo

> Reported-by: Luca Miccio <lucmiccio@...il.com>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Valente <paolo.valente@...aro.org>
> ---
> block/bfq-iosched.c | 21 ++++++++++++++++++---
> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> index ed93da2..bbeaf52 100644
> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> @@ -725,8 +725,12 @@ static void bfq_updated_next_req(struct bfq_data *bfqd,
> }
> 
> static void
> -bfq_bfqq_resume_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_io_cq *bic)
> +bfq_bfqq_resume_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_data *bfqd,
> +		      struct bfq_io_cq *bic, bool bfq_already_existing)
> {
> +	unsigned int old_wr_coeff = bfqq->wr_coeff;
> +	bool busy = bfq_already_existing && bfq_bfqq_busy(bfqq);
> +
> 	if (bic->saved_idle_window)
> 		bfq_mark_bfqq_idle_window(bfqq);
> 	else
> @@ -754,6 +758,14 @@ bfq_bfqq_resume_state(struct bfq_queue *bfqq, struct bfq_io_cq *bic)
> 
> 	/* make sure weight will be updated, however we got here */
> 	bfqq->entity.prio_changed = 1;
> +
> +	if (likely(!busy))
> +		return;
> +
> +	if (old_wr_coeff == 1 && bfqq->wr_coeff > 1)
> +		bfqd->wr_busy_queues++;
> +	else if (old_wr_coeff > 1 && bfqq->wr_coeff == 1)
> +		bfqd->wr_busy_queues--;
> }
> 
> static int bfqq_process_refs(struct bfq_queue *bfqq)
> @@ -4402,7 +4414,7 @@ static int bfq_get_rq_private(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
> 	const int is_sync = rq_is_sync(rq);
> 	struct bfq_queue *bfqq;
> 	bool new_queue = false;
> -	bool split = false;
> +	bool bfqq_already_existing = false, split = false;
> 
> 	spin_lock_irq(&bfqd->lock);
> 
> @@ -4432,6 +4444,8 @@ static int bfq_get_rq_private(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
> 				bfqq = bfq_get_bfqq_handle_split(bfqd, bic, bio,
> 								 true, is_sync,
> 								 NULL);
> +			else
> +				bfqq_already_existing = true;
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> @@ -4457,7 +4471,8 @@ static int bfq_get_rq_private(struct request_queue *q, struct request *rq,
> 			 * queue: restore the idle window and the
> 			 * possible weight raising period.
> 			 */
> -			bfq_bfqq_resume_state(bfqq, bic);
> +			bfq_bfqq_resume_state(bfqq, bfqd, bic,
> +					      bfqq_already_existing);
> 		}
> 	}
> 
> -- 
> 2.10.0
>