[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Yk+ETwQ2aQmCgrfk@fedora>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2022 17:39:43 -0700
From: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Cc: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>, tj@...nel.org, cl@...ux.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
zhouchengming@...edance.com, songmuchun@...edance.com,
Ming Lei <ming.lei@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] percpu_ref: call wake_up_all() after percpu_ref_put()
completes
Hello,
On Thu, Apr 07, 2022 at 03:57:52PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> (cc Ming Lei)
>
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2022 18:33:35 +0800 Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com> 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.
>
> Thanks. I'll grab this, but shall await input from others before doing
> anything else with it.
>
Seems right to me. The percpu_ref protects the __percpu_ref_exit(), not
the waiters.
Acked-by: Dennis Zhou <dennis@...nel.org>
Thanks,
Dennis
> > Signed-off-by: Qi Zheng <zhengqi.arch@...edance.com>
> > +++ b/lib/percpu-refcount.c
> > @@ -154,13 +154,14 @@ static void percpu_ref_call_confirm_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
> >
> > data->confirm_switch(ref);
> > data->confirm_switch = NULL;
> > - wake_up_all(&percpu_ref_switch_waitq);
> >
> > if (!data->allow_reinit)
> > __percpu_ref_exit(ref);
> >
> > /* drop ref from percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic() */
> > percpu_ref_put(ref);
> > +
> > + wake_up_all(&percpu_ref_switch_waitq);
> > }
> >
> > static void percpu_ref_switch_to_atomic_rcu(struct rcu_head *rcu)
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists