linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/6] blk-mq: replace timeout synchronization with a RCU and generation based scheme

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: <1513287766.2475.73.camel@wdc.com>
Date:   Thu, 14 Dec 2017 21:42:48 +0000
From:   Bart Van Assche <Bart.VanAssche@....com>
To:     "peterz@...radead.org" <peterz@...radead.org>
CC:     "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
        "kernel-team@...com" <kernel-team@...com>,
        "oleg@...hat.com" <oleg@...hat.com>, "hch@....de" <hch@....de>,
        "axboe@...nel.dk" <axboe@...nel.dk>,
        "jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com" <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>,
        "osandov@...com" <osandov@...com>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/6] blk-mq: replace timeout synchronization with a RCU
 and generation based scheme

On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 21:20 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 06:51:11PM +0000, Bart Van Assche wrote:
> > On Tue, 2017-12-12 at 11:01 -0800, Tejun Heo wrote:
> > > +	write_seqcount_begin(&rq->gstate_seq);
> > > +	blk_mq_rq_update_state(rq, MQ_RQ_IN_FLIGHT);
> > > +	blk_add_timer(rq);
> > > +	write_seqcount_end(&rq->gstate_seq);
> > 
> > My understanding is that both write_seqcount_begin() and write_seqcount_end()
> > trigger a write memory barrier. Is a seqcount really faster than a spinlock?
> 
> Yes lots, no atomic operations and no waiting.
> 
> The only constraint for write_seqlock is that there must not be any
> concurrency.
> 
> But now that I look at this again, TJ, why can't the below happen?
> 
> 	write_seqlock_begin();
> 	blk_mq_rq_update_state(rq, IN_FLIGHT);
> 	blk_add_timer(rq);
> 	<timer-irq>
> 		read_seqcount_begin()
> 			while (seq & 1)
> 				cpurelax();
> 		// life-lock
> 	</timer-irq>
> 	write_seqlock_end();

Hello Peter,

Some time ago the block layer was changed to handle timeouts in thread context
instead of interrupt context. See also commit 287922eb0b18 ("block: defer
timeouts to a workqueue").

Bart.