Date:   Tue, 10 Mar 2020 15:52:52 +0800
From:   kernel test robot <rong.a.chen@...el.com>
To:     Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
Cc:     NeilBrown <neilb@...e.de>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
        yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, lkp@...ts.01.org,
        Bruce Fields <bfields@...ldses.org>,
        Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [locks] 6d390e4b5d: will-it-scale.per_process_ops -96.6%
 regression

On Mon, Mar 09, 2020 at 05:58:14PM -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> On Tue, 2020-03-10 at 08:42 +1100, NeilBrown wrote:
> > On Mon, Mar 09 2020, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > 
> > > On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 13:22 -0400, Jeff Layton wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2020-03-09 at 08:52 -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 7:36 AM Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org> wrote:
> > > > > > On Sun, 2020-03-08 at 22:03 +0800, kernel test robot wrote:
> > > > > > > FYI, we noticed a -96.6% regression of will-it-scale.per_process_ops due to commit:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > This is not completely unexpected as we're banging on the global
> > > > > > blocked_lock_lock now for every unlock. This test just thrashes file
> > > > > > locks and unlocks without doing anything in between, so the workload
> > > > > > looks pretty artificial [1].
> > > > > > 
> > > > > > It would be nice to avoid the global lock in this codepath, but it
> > > > > > doesn't look simple to do. I'll keep thinking about it, but for now I'm
> > > > > > inclined to ignore this result unless we see a problem in more realistic
> > > > > > workloads.
> > > > > 
> > > > > That is a _huge_ regression, though.
> > > > > 
> > > > > What about something like the attached? Wouldn't that work? And make
> > > > > the code actually match the old comment about wow "fl_blocker" being
> > > > > NULL being special.
> > > > > 
> > > > > The old code seemed to not know about things like memory ordering either.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Patch is entirely untested, but aims to have that "smp_store_release()
> > > > > means I'm done and not going to touch it any more", making that
> > > > > smp_load_acquire() test hopefully be valid as per the comment..
> > > > 
> > > > Yeah, something along those lines maybe. I don't think we can use
> > > > fl_blocker that way though, as the wait_event_interruptible is waiting
> > > > on it to go to NULL, and the wake_up happens before fl_blocker is
> > > > cleared.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we need to mix in some sort of FL_BLOCK_ACTIVE flag and use that
> > > > instead of testing for !fl_blocker to see whether we can avoid the
> > > > blocked_lock_lock?
> > > >   
> > > 
> > > How about something like this instead? (untested other than for
> > > compilation)
> > > 
> > > Basically, this just switches the waiters over to wait for
> > > fl_blocked_member to go empty. That still happens before the wakeup, so
> > > it should be ok to wait on that.
> > > 
> > > I think we can also eliminate the lockless list_empty check in
> > > locks_delete_block, as the fl_blocker check should be sufficient now.
> > > -- 
> > > Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> > > From c179d779c9b72838ed9996a65d686d86679d1639 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > > From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
> > > Date: Mon, 9 Mar 2020 14:35:43 -0400
> > > Subject: [PATCH] locks: reinstate locks_delete_lock optimization
> > > 
> > > ...by using smp_load_acquire and smp_store_release to close the race
> > > window.
> > > 
> > > [ jlayton: wait on the fl_blocked_requests list to go empty instead of
> > > 	   the fl_blocker pointer to clear. Remove the list_empty check
> > > 	   from locks_delete_lock shortcut. ]
> > 
> > Why do you think it is OK to remove that list_empty check?  I don't
> > think it is.  There might be locked requests that need to be woken up.
> > 
> 
> Temporary braino. We definitely cannot remove that check.
> 
> > As the problem here is a use-after-free due to a race, one option would
> > be to use rcu_free() on the file_lock, and hold rcu_read_lock() around
> > test/use.
> > 
> 
> Yeah, I was considering this too, but Linus' approach seemed simpler.
> 
> > Another option is to use a different lock.  The fl_wait contains a
> > spinlock, and we have wake_up_locked() which is provided for exactly
> > these sorts of situations where the wake_up call can race with a thread
> > waking up.
> > 
> > So my compile-tested-only proposal is below.
> > I can probably a proper change-log entry if you think the patch is a
> > good way to go.
> > 
> > NeilBrown
> > 
> > 
> > diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> > index 426b55d333d5..8aa04d5ac8b3 100644
> > --- a/fs/locks.c
> > +++ b/fs/locks.c
> > @@ -735,11 +735,13 @@ static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
> >  
> >  		waiter = list_first_entry(&blocker->fl_blocked_requests,
> >  					  struct file_lock, fl_blocked_member);
> > +		spin_lock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> >  		__locks_delete_block(waiter);
> >  		if (waiter->fl_lmops && waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify)
> >  			waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify(waiter);
> >  		else
> > -			wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
> > +			wake_up_locked(&waiter->fl_wait);
> > +		spin_unlock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> >  	}
> >  }
> >  
> > @@ -753,6 +755,31 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
> >  {
> >  	int status = -ENOENT;
> >  
> > +	/*
> > +	 * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread
> > +	 * "owns" the lock and is the only one that might try to claim
> > +	 * the lock.  So it is safe to test fl_blocker locklessly.
> > +	 * Also if fl_blocker is NULL, this waiter is not listed on
> > +	 * fl_blocked_requests for some lock, so no other request can
> > +	 * be added to the list of fl_blocked_requests for this
> > +	 * request.  So if fl_blocker is NULL, it is safe to
> > +	 * locklessly check if fl_blocked_requests is empty.  If both
> > +	 * of these checks succeed, there is no need to take the lock.
> > +	 * However, some other thread might have only *just* set
> > +	 * fl_blocker to NULL and it about to send a wakeup on
> > +	 * fl_wait, so we mustn't return too soon or we might free waiter
> > +	 * before that wakeup can be sent.  So take the fl_wait.lock
> > +	 * to serialize with the wakeup in __locks_wake_up_blocks().
> > +	 */
> > +	if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL) {
> > +		spin_lock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> > +		if (waiter->fl_blocker == NULL &&
> > +		    list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests)) {
> > +			spin_unlock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> > +			return status;
> > +		}
> > +		spin_unlock(&waiter->fl_wait.lock);
> > +	}
> >  	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
> >  	if (waiter->fl_blocker)
> >  		status = 0;
> 
> Yeah, this is simpler for me to prove to myself that it's correct, and I
> like that it touches less code, tbh. I'll give it a try here in a bit
> and see if it also fixes up the perf regression.
> 
> FWIW, here's the variant of Linus' patch I've been testing. It seems to
> fix the performance regression too.
> 
> --------------8<---------------
> 
> [PATCH] locks: reinstate locks_delete_lock optimization
> 
> There is measurable performance impact in some synthetic tests in commit
> 6d390e4b5d48 (locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup
> a waiter).  Fix the race condition instead by clearing the fl_blocker
> pointer after the wakeup and by using smp_load_acquire and
> smp_store_release to handle the access.
> 
> This means that we can no longer use the clearing of fl_blocker clearing
> as the wait condition, so switch over to checking whether the
> fl_blocked_member list is empty.
> 
> [ jlayton: wait on the fl_blocked_requests list to go empty instead of
> 	   the fl_blocker pointer to clear. ]
> 
> Cc: yangerkun <yangerkun@...wei.com>
> Fixes: 6d390e4b5d48 (locks: fix a potential use-after-free problem when wakeup a waiter)
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Layton <jlayton@...nel.org>
> ---
>  fs/cifs/file.c |  3 ++-
>  fs/locks.c     | 43 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
>  2 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/fs/cifs/file.c b/fs/cifs/file.c
> index 3b942ecdd4be..8f9d849a0012 100644
> --- a/fs/cifs/file.c
> +++ b/fs/cifs/file.c
> @@ -1169,7 +1169,8 @@ cifs_posix_lock_set(struct file *file, struct file_lock *flock)
>  	rc = posix_lock_file(file, flock, NULL);
>  	up_write(&cinode->lock_sem);
>  	if (rc == FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED) {
> -		rc = wait_event_interruptible(flock->fl_wait, !flock->fl_blocker);
> +		rc = wait_event_interruptible(flock->fl_wait,
> +					list_empty(&flock->fl_blocked_member));
>  		if (!rc)
>  			goto try_again;
>  		locks_delete_block(flock);
> diff --git a/fs/locks.c b/fs/locks.c
> index 426b55d333d5..e78d37c73df5 100644
> --- a/fs/locks.c
> +++ b/fs/locks.c
> @@ -725,7 +725,6 @@ static void __locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
>  {
>  	locks_delete_global_blocked(waiter);
>  	list_del_init(&waiter->fl_blocked_member);
> -	waiter->fl_blocker = NULL;
>  }
>  
>  static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
> @@ -740,6 +739,12 @@ static void __locks_wake_up_blocks(struct file_lock *blocker)
>  			waiter->fl_lmops->lm_notify(waiter);
>  		else
>  			wake_up(&waiter->fl_wait);
> +
> +		/*
> +		 * Tell the world we're done with it - see comment at
> +		 * top of locks_delete_block().
> +		 */
> +		smp_store_release(&waiter->fl_blocker, NULL);
>  	}
>  }
>  
> @@ -753,11 +758,32 @@ int locks_delete_block(struct file_lock *waiter)
>  {
>  	int status = -ENOENT;
>  
> +	/*
> +	 * If fl_blocker is NULL, it won't be set again as this thread
> +	 * "owns" the lock and is the only one that might try to claim
> +	 * the lock.  So it is safe to test fl_blocker locklessly.
> +	 * Also if fl_blocker is NULL, this waiter is not listed on
> +	 * fl_blocked_requests for some lock, so no other request can
> +	 * be added to the list of fl_blocked_requests for this
> +	 * request.  So if fl_blocker is NULL, it is safe to
> +	 * locklessly check if fl_blocked_requests is empty.  If both
> +	 * of these checks succeed, there is no need to take the lock.
> +	 */
> +	if (!smp_load_acquire(&waiter->fl_blocker) &&
> +	    list_empty(&waiter->fl_blocked_requests))
> +		return status;
> +
>  	spin_lock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>  	if (waiter->fl_blocker)
>  		status = 0;
>  	__locks_wake_up_blocks(waiter);
>  	__locks_delete_block(waiter);
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * Tell the world we're done with it - see comment at top
> +	 * of this function
> +	 */
> +	smp_store_release(&waiter->fl_blocker, NULL);
>  	spin_unlock(&blocked_lock_lock);
>  	return status;
>  }
> @@ -1350,7 +1376,8 @@ static int posix_lock_inode_wait(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *fl)
>  		error = posix_lock_inode(inode, fl, NULL);
>  		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
>  			break;
> -		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
> +		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
> +					list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
>  		if (error)
>  			break;
>  	}
> @@ -1435,7 +1462,8 @@ int locks_mandatory_area(struct inode *inode, struct file *filp, loff_t start,
>  		error = posix_lock_inode(inode, &fl, NULL);
>  		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
>  			break;
> -		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl.fl_wait, !fl.fl_blocker);
> +		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl.fl_wait,
> +					list_empty(&fl.fl_blocked_member));
>  		if (!error) {
>  			/*
>  			 * If we've been sleeping someone might have
> @@ -1638,7 +1666,8 @@ int __break_lease(struct inode *inode, unsigned int mode, unsigned int type)
>  
>  	locks_dispose_list(&dispose);
>  	error = wait_event_interruptible_timeout(new_fl->fl_wait,
> -						!new_fl->fl_blocker, break_time);
> +					list_empty(&new_fl->fl_blocked_member),
> +					break_time);
>  
>  	percpu_down_read(&file_rwsem);
>  	spin_lock(&ctx->flc_lock);
> @@ -2122,7 +2151,8 @@ static int flock_lock_inode_wait(struct inode *inode, struct file_lock *fl)
>  		error = flock_lock_inode(inode, fl);
>  		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
>  			break;
> -		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
> +		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
> +				list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
>  		if (error)
>  			break;
>  	}
> @@ -2399,7 +2429,8 @@ static int do_lock_file_wait(struct file *filp, unsigned int cmd,
>  		error = vfs_lock_file(filp, cmd, fl, NULL);
>  		if (error != FILE_LOCK_DEFERRED)
>  			break;
> -		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait, !fl->fl_blocker);
> +		error = wait_event_interruptible(fl->fl_wait,
> +					list_empty(&fl->fl_blocked_member));
>  		if (error)
>  			break;
>  	}
> -- 
> 2.24.1
> 
> 

Hi,

We tested the above patch, the result of will-it-scale.per_process_ops
increased to 67207.

0a68ff5e2e7cf226  6d390e4b5d48ec03bb87e63cf0  bac15fc9e87397da379af89a33  testcase/testparams/testbox
----------------  --------------------------  --------------------------  ---------------------------
         %stddev      change         %stddev      change         %stddev
             \          |                \          |                \  
     66597 ±  3%       -97%       2260                       67207 ±  3%  will-it-scale/performance-process-100%-lock1-ucode=0x11/lkp-knm01
     66597             -97%       2260                       67207        GEO-MEAN will-it-scale.per_process_ops

Best Regards,
Rong Chen

Powered by blists - more mailing lists