linux-kernel - [PATCH] bcache: add separate workqueue for journal

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <b5a258f4-2d58-04ad-96f7-22cd42588a3c@profihost.ag>
Date:   Thu, 27 Sep 2018 22:18:55 +0200
From:   Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG <s.priebe@...fihost.ag>
To:     Eddie Chapman <eddie@...k.net>
Cc:     Coly Li <colyli@...e.de>, guoju <fangguoju@...il.com>,
        kent.overstreet@...il.com, linux-bcache@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: [PATCH] bcache: add separate workqueue for journal_write to avoid
 deadlock

Hi Coly,

is this the deadlock I reported some weeks ago?

Greets,
Stefan

Excuse my typo sent from my mobile phone.

Am 27.09.2018 um 17:53 schrieb Eddie Chapman <eddie@...k.net
<mailto:eddie@...k.net>>:

> On 27/09/18 16:23, Coly Li wrote:
>> On 9/27/18 9:45 PM, guoju wrote:
>>> After write SSD completed, bcache schedule journal_write work to
>>> system_wq, that is a public workqueue in system, without WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
>>> flag. system_wq is also a bound wq, and there may be no idle kworker on
>>> current processor. Creating a new kworker may unfortunately need to
>>> reclaim memory first, by shrinking cache and slab used by vfs, which
>>> depends on bcache device. That's a deadlock.
>>>
>>> This patch create a new workqueue for journal_write with WQ_MEM_RECLAIM
>>> flag. It's rescuer thread will work to avoid the deadlock.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: guoju <fangguoju@...il.com <mailto:fangguoju@...il.com>>
>> Nice catch, this fix is quite important. I will try to submit to Jens
>> ASAP.
>> Thanks.
>> Coly Li
>
> Once this goes into 4.19, would this be a candidate for backporting to
> any stable kernels, or does it only fix something introduced in this
> cycle?
>
> thanks,
> Eddie