linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] md/raid10: convert resync

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]

Message-ID: <8b21f188-78ef-edbb-d2eb-3a9d74a6e84d@linux.dev>
Date:   Fri, 2 Sep 2022 09:00:54 +0800
From:   Guoqing Jiang <guoqing.jiang@...ux.dev>
To:     Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
        Yu Kuai <yukuai1@...weicloud.com>, song@...nel.org
Cc:     linux-raid@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        yukuai3@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH -next 2/3] md/raid10: convert resync_lock to use seqlock



On 9/2/22 8:56 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>
> On 2022-09-01 18:49, Guoqing Jiang wrote:
>>
>> On 9/2/22 2:41 AM, Logan Gunthorpe wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 2022-08-29 07:15, Yu Kuai wrote:
>>>> From: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>>>
>>>> Currently, wait_barrier() will hold 'resync_lock' to read
>>>> 'conf->barrier',
>>>> and io can't be dispatched until 'barrier' is dropped.
>>>>
>>>> Since holding the 'barrier' is not common, convert 'resync_lock' to use
>>>> seqlock so that holding lock can be avoided in fast path.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Yu Kuai <yukuai3@...wei.com>
>>> I've found some lockdep issues starting with this patch in md-next while
>>> running mdadm tests (specifically 00raid10 when run about 10 times in a
>>> row).
>>>
>>> I've seen a couple different lock dep errors. The first seems to be
>>> reproducible on this patch, then it possibly changes to the second on
>>> subsequent patches. Not sure exactly.
>> That's why I said "try mdadm test suites too to avoid regression." ...
> You may have to run it multiple times, a single run tends not to catch
> all errors. I had to loop the noted test 10 times to be sure I hit this
> every time when I did the simple bisect.
>
> And ensure that all the debug options are on when you run it (take a
> look at the Kernel Hacking section in menuconfig). You won't hit this
> bug without at least CONFIG_PROVE_LOCKING=y.

Yes,  we definitely need to enable the option to test change for locking 
stuffs.

Thanks,
Guoqing