[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <cffbad48-db3b-e99b-11b3-7956ed460fb2@bytedance.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 11:50:05 +0800
From: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
To: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
Cc: dennis@...nel.org, tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, zhouchengming@...edance.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_ref: call wake_up_all() after percpu_ref_put()
completes
On 2022/4/8 10:54 AM, Muchun Song wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 06:33:35PM +0800, Qi Zheng wrote:
>> In the percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu(), we call the wake_up_all()
>> before calling percpu_ref_put(), which will cause the value of
>> percpu_ref to be unstable when percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync()
>> returns.
>>
>> CPU0 CPU1
>>
>> percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(&ref)
>> --> percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic(&ref)
>> --> percpu_ref_get(ref); /* put after confirmation */
>> call_rcu(&ref->data->rcu, percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu);
>>
>> percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu
>> --> percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu
>> --> data->confirm_switch = NULL;
>> wake_up_all(&percpu_ref_switch_waitq);
>>
>> /* here waiting to wake up */
>> wait_event(percpu_ref_switch_waitq, !ref->data->confirm_switch);
>> (A)percpu_ref_put(ref);
>> /* The value of &ref is unstable! */
>> percpu_ref_is_zero(&ref)
>> (B)percpu_ref_put(ref);
>>
>> As shown above, assuming that the counts on each cpu add up to 0 before
>> calling percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync(), we expect that after switching
>> to atomic mode, percpu_ref_is_zero() can return true. But actually it will
>> return different values in the two cases of A and B, which is not what
>> we expected.
>>
>> Maybe the original purpose of percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() is
>> just to ensure that the conversion to atomic mode is completed, but it
>> should not return with an extra reference count.
>>
>> Calling wake_up_all() after percpu_ref_put() ensures that the value of
>> percpu_ref is stable after percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_sync() returns.
>> So just do it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
>
> Are any users affected by this? If so, I think a Fixes tag
> is necessary.
Looks all current users(blk_pre_runtime_suspend() and set_in_sync()) are
affected by this.
I see that this patch has been merged into the mm tree, can Andrew help
me add the following Fixes tag?
Fixes: 490c79a65708 ("percpu_ref: decouple switching to atomic mode and
killing")
Thanks,
Qi
>
> The fix LGTM.
>
> Reviewed-by: Muchun Song <songmuchun@...edance.com>
>
> Thanks.
>
--
Thanks,
Qi
Powered by blists - more mailing lists