linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH] blk-cgroup: prevent rcu_sched detected stalls warnings in blkg_destroy

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:   Wed, 25 Nov 2020 20:49:19 +0800
From:   "yukuai (C)" <yukuai3@...wei.com>
To:     Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
CC:     <axboe@...nel.dk>, <cgroups@...r.kernel.org>,
        <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        <yi.zhang@...wei.com>, <zhangxiaoxu5@...wei.com>,
        <houtao1@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] blk-cgroup: prevent rcu_sched detected stalls
 warnings in blkg_destroy_all()

On 2020/11/25 20:32, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Thanks for the fix. A couple comments below.
> 
> On Sat, Nov 21, 2020 at 04:34:20PM +0800, Yu Kuai wrote:
>> +#define BLKG_DESTROY_BATH 4096
> 
> I think you meant BLKG_DESTROY_BATCH.
> 
>>   static void blkg_destroy_all(struct request_queue *q)
>>   {
>>   	struct blkcg_gq *blkg, *n;
>> +	int count = BLKG_DESTROY_BATH;
> 
> But might as well just write 4096 here.
> 
>>   	spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>>   	list_for_each_entry_safe(blkg, n, &q->blkg_list, q_node) {
>>   		struct blkcg *blkcg = blkg->blkcg;
>>   
>> +		/*
>> +		 * If the list is too long, the loop can took a long time,
>> +		 * thus relese the lock for a while when a batch of blkcg
>> +		 * were destroyed.
>> +		 */
>> +		if (!(--count)) {
>> +			count = BLKG_DESTROY_BATH;
>> +			spin_unlock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
>> +			cond_resched();
>> +			spin_lock_irq(&q->queue_lock);
> 
> You can't continue iteration after dropping both locks. You'd have to jump
> out of loop and start list_for_each_entry_safe() again.

Thanks for your review, it's right. On the other hand
blkcg_activate_policy() and blkcg_deactivate_policy() might have the
same issue. My idea is that inserting a bookmark to the list, and
restard from here.

By the way, I found that blk_throtl_update_limit_valid() is called from
throtl_pd_offline(). If CONFIG_BLK_DEV_THROTTLING_LOW is off, lower
limit will always be zero, therefor a lot of time will be wasted to
iterate descendants to find a nonzero lower limit.

Do you think it's ok to do such modification:

diff --git a/block/blk-throttle.c b/block/blk-throttle.c
index b771c4299982..d52cac9f3a7c 100644
--- a/block/blk-throttle.c
+++ b/block/blk-throttle.c
@@ -587,6 +587,7 @@ static void throtl_pd_online(struct blkg_policy_data 
*pd)
         tg_update_has_rules(tg);
  }

+#ifdef CONFIG_BLK_DEV_THROTTLING_LOW
  static void blk_throtl_update_limit_valid(struct throtl_data *td)
  {
         struct cgroup_subsys_state *pos_css;
@@ -607,6 +608,11 @@ static void blk_throtl_update_limit_valid(struct 
throtl_data *td)

         td->limit_valid[LIMIT_LOW] = low_valid;
  }
+#else
+static inline void blk_throtl_update_limit_valid(struct throtl_data *td)
+{
+}
+#endif

  static void throtl_upgrade_state(struct throtl_data *td);
  static void throtl_pd_offline(struct blkg_policy_data *pd)

Thanks!
Yu Kuai