linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-wbt: get back the missed wakeup from __wbt

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: <bd84ff08-b75a-0a2f-6b37-07a104452bff@kernel.dk>
Date:   Thu, 23 Aug 2018 09:37:14 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        anchalag@...zon.com, van der Linden <fllinden@...zon.com>,
        Frank <fllinden@...zon.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-wbt: get back the missed wakeup from __wbt_done

On 8/23/18 7:08 AM, Jianchao Wang wrote:
> 2887e41 (blk-wbt: Avoid lock contention and thundering herd
> issue in wbt_wait) introduces two cases that could miss wakeup:
>  - __wbt_done only wakes up one waiter one time. There could be
>    multiple waiters and (limit - inflight) > 1 at the moment.
> 
>  - When the waiter is waked up, it is still on wait queue and set
>    to TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE immediately, so this waiter could be
>    waked up one more time. If a __wbt_done comes and wakes up
>    again, the prevous waiter may waste a wakeup.
> 
> To fix them and avoid to introduce too much lock contention, we
> introduce our own wake up func wbt_wake_function in __wbt_wait and
> use wake_up_all in __wbt_done. wbt_wake_function will try to get
> wbt budget firstly, if sucesses, wake up the process, otherwise,
> return -1 to interrupt the wake up loop.

I really like this approach, since it'll naturally wake up as many
as we can instead of either being single wakeups, or wake all.

BTW, you added Anchal and Frank to the CC in the patch, but they 
are not actually CC'ed. Doing that now - can you guys give this
a whirl? Should still solve the thundering herd issue, but be
closer to the original logic in terms of wakeup. Actually better,
since we remain on list and remain ordered.

Leaving the patch below for you guys.

> Signed-off-by: Jianchao Wang <jianchao.w.wang@...cle.com>
> Fixes: 2887e41 (blk-wbt: Avoid lock contention and thundering herd issue in wbt_wait)
> Cc: Anchal Agarwal <anchalag@...zon.com>
> Cc: Frank van der Linden <fllinden@...zon.com>
> ---
>  block/blk-wbt.c | 78 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>  1 file changed, 54 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/blk-wbt.c b/block/blk-wbt.c
> index c9358f1..2667590 100644
> --- a/block/blk-wbt.c
> +++ b/block/blk-wbt.c
> @@ -166,7 +166,7 @@ static void __wbt_done(struct rq_qos *rqos, enum wbt_flags wb_acct)
>  		int diff = limit - inflight;
>  
>  		if (!inflight || diff >= rwb->wb_background / 2)
> -			wake_up(&rqw->wait);
> +			wake_up_all(&rqw->wait);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -481,6 +481,40 @@ static inline unsigned int get_limit(struct rq_wb *rwb, unsigned long rw)
>  	return limit;
>  }
>  
> +struct wbt_wait_data {
> +	struct task_struct *curr;
> +	struct rq_wb *rwb;
> +	struct rq_wait *rqw;
> +	unsigned long rw;
> +};
> +
> +static int wbt_wake_function(wait_queue_entry_t *curr, unsigned int mode,
> +		int wake_flags, void *key)
> +{
> +	struct wbt_wait_data *data = curr->private;
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * If fail to get budget, return -1 to interrupt the wake up
> +	 * loop in __wake_up_common.
> +	 */
> +	if (!rq_wait_inc_below(data->rqw, get_limit(data->rwb, data->rw)))
> +		return -1;
> +
> +	wake_up_process(data->curr);
> +
> +	list_del_init(&curr->entry);
> +	return 1;
> +}
> +
> +static inline void wbt_init_wait(struct wait_queue_entry *wait,
> +		struct wbt_wait_data *data)
> +{
> +	INIT_LIST_HEAD(&wait->entry);
> +	wait->flags = 0;
> +	wait->func = wbt_wake_function;
> +	wait->private = data;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Block if we will exceed our limit, or if we are currently waiting for
>   * the timer to kick off queuing again.
> @@ -491,31 +525,27 @@ static void __wbt_wait(struct rq_wb *rwb, enum wbt_flags wb_acct,
>  	__acquires(lock)
>  {
>  	struct rq_wait *rqw = get_rq_wait(rwb, wb_acct);
> -	DECLARE_WAITQUEUE(wait, current);
> -	bool has_sleeper;
> -
> -	has_sleeper = wq_has_sleeper(&rqw->wait);
> -	if (!has_sleeper && rq_wait_inc_below(rqw, get_limit(rwb, rw)))
> +	struct wait_queue_entry wait;
> +	struct wbt_wait_data data = {
> +		.curr = current,
> +		.rwb = rwb,
> +		.rqw = rqw,
> +		.rw = rw,
> +	};
> +
> +	if (!wq_has_sleeper(&rqw->wait) &&
> +			rq_wait_inc_below(rqw, get_limit(rwb, rw)))
>  		return;
>  
> -	add_wait_queue_exclusive(&rqw->wait, &wait);
> -	do {
> -		set_current_state(TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> -
> -		if (!has_sleeper && rq_wait_inc_below(rqw, get_limit(rwb, rw)))
> -			break;
> -
> -		if (lock) {
> -			spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> -			io_schedule();
> -			spin_lock_irq(lock);
> -		} else
> -			io_schedule();
> -		has_sleeper = false;
> -	} while (1);
> -
> -	__set_current_state(TASK_RUNNING);
> -	remove_wait_queue(&rqw->wait, &wait);
> +	wbt_init_wait(&wait, &data);
> +	prepare_to_wait_exclusive(&rqw->wait, &wait,
> +			TASK_UNINTERRUPTIBLE);
> +	if (lock) {
> +		spin_unlock_irq(lock);
> +		io_schedule();
> +		spin_lock_irq(lock);
> +	} else
> +		io_schedule();
>  }
>  
>  static inline bool wbt_should_throttle(struct rq_wb *rwb, struct bio *bio)
> 


-- 
Jens Axboe