linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has

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:   Mon, 16 May 2022 11:56:20 +0200
From:   Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>
To:     Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
Cc:     jack@...e.cz, paolo.valente@...aro.org, axboe@...nel.dk,
        linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next v2 2/2] block, bfq: make bfq_has_work() more
 accurate

On Fri 13-05-22 10:35:07, Yu Kuai wrote:
> bfq_has_work() is using busy_queues currently, which is not accurate
> because bfq_queue is busy doesn't represent that it has requests. Since
> bfqd aready has a counter 'queued' to record how many requests are in
> bfq, use it instead of busy_queues.
> 
> Noted that bfq_has_work() can be called with 'bfqd->lock' held, thus the
> lock can't be held in bfq_has_work() to protect 'bfqd->queued'.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>

Looks good. Feel free to add:

Reviewed-by: Jan Kara <jack@...e.cz>

								Honza

> ---
>  block/bfq-iosched.c | 16 ++++++++++++----
>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/block/bfq-iosched.c b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> index 61750696e87f..740dd83853a6 100644
> --- a/block/bfq-iosched.c
> +++ b/block/bfq-iosched.c
> @@ -2210,7 +2210,11 @@ static void bfq_add_request(struct request *rq)
>  
>  	bfq_log_bfqq(bfqd, bfqq, "add_request %d", rq_is_sync(rq));
>  	bfqq->queued[rq_is_sync(rq)]++;
> -	bfqd->queued++;
> +	/*
> +	 * Updating of 'bfqd->queued' is protected by 'bfqd->lock', however, it
> +	 * may be read without holding the lock in bfq_has_work().
> +	 */
> +	WRITE_ONCE(bfqd->queued, bfqd->queued + 1);
>  
>  	if (RB_EMPTY_ROOT(&bfqq->sort_list) && bfq_bfqq_sync(bfqq)) {
>  		bfq_check_waker(bfqd, bfqq, now_ns);
> @@ -2402,7 +2406,11 @@ static void bfq_remove_request(struct request_queue *q,
>  	if (rq->queuelist.prev != &rq->queuelist)
>  		list_del_init(&rq->queuelist);
>  	bfqq->queued[sync]--;
> -	bfqd->queued--;
> +	/*
> +	 * Updating of 'bfqd->queued' is protected by 'bfqd->lock', however, it
> +	 * may be read without holding the lock in bfq_has_work().
> +	 */
> +	WRITE_ONCE(bfqd->queued, bfqd->queued - 1);
>  	elv_rb_del(&bfqq->sort_list, rq);
>  
>  	elv_rqhash_del(q, rq);
> @@ -5063,11 +5071,11 @@ static bool bfq_has_work(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
>  	struct bfq_data *bfqd = hctx->queue->elevator->elevator_data;
>  
>  	/*
> -	 * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->busy_queues should cause at
> +	 * Avoiding lock: a race on bfqd->queued should cause at
>  	 * most a call to dispatch for nothing
>  	 */
>  	return !list_empty_careful(&bfqd->dispatch) ||
> -		bfq_tot_busy_queues(bfqd) > 0;
> +		READ_ONCE(bfqd->queued);
>  }
>  
>  static struct request *__bfq_dispatch_request(struct blk_mq_hw_ctx *hctx)
> -- 
> 2.31.1
> 
-- 
Jan Kara <jack@...e.com>
SUSE Labs, CR