linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] blk-iocost: do not WARNING if iocg has already offlined

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 17:20:20 +0800
From: Li Nan <linan666@...weicloud.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>, linan666@...weicloud.com
Cc: josef@...icpanda.com, axboe@...nel.dk, hch@....de,
 cgroups@...r.kernel.org, linux-block@...r.kernel.org,
 linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, yukuai3@...wei.com, yi.zhang@...wei.com,
 houtao1@...wei.com, yangerkun@...wei.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] blk-iocost: do not WARNING if iocg has already offlined



在 2024/4/19 0:14, Tejun Heo 写道:
> Hello,
> 
> On Thu, Apr 18, 2024 at 03:23:40PM +0800, linan666@...weicloud.com wrote:
>> From: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>>
>> In iocg_pay_debt(), warn is triggered if 'active_list' is empty, which
>> is intended to confirm iocg is avitve when it has debt. However, warn
>> can be triggered during removing cgroup controller, as
> 
> Maybe saying "a blkcg is being removed" is clearer?

Thanks for your suggestion. I will correct my expression in next version.

> 
>> iocg_waitq_timer_fn() is awakened at that time.
>>
>>    WARNING: CPU: 0 PID: 2344971 at block/blk-iocost.c:1402 iocg_pay_debt+0x14c/0x190
>>    Call trace:
>>    iocg_pay_debt+0x14c/0x190
>>    iocg_kick_waitq+0x438/0x4c0
>>    iocg_waitq_timer_fn+0xd8/0x130
>>    __run_hrtimer+0x144/0x45c
>>    __hrtimer_run_queues+0x16c/0x244
>>    hrtimer_interrupt+0x2cc/0x7b0
>>
>> The warn in this situation is meaningless. Since this iocg is being
>> removed, the state of the 'active_list' is irrelevant, and 'waitq_timer'
>> is canceled after removing 'active_list' in ioc_pd_free(), which ensure
>> iocg is freed after iocg_waitq_timer_fn() returns.
>>
>> Therefore, add the check if iocg has already offlined to avoid warn
>> when removing cgroup controller.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Li Nan <linan122@...wei.com>
>> ---
>>   block/blk-iocost.c | 2 +-
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/block/blk-iocost.c b/block/blk-iocost.c
>> index baa20c85799d..2e109c016a39 100644
>> --- a/block/blk-iocost.c
>> +++ b/block/blk-iocost.c
>> @@ -1440,7 +1440,7 @@ static void iocg_pay_debt(struct ioc_gq *iocg, u64 abs_vpay,
>>   	lockdep_assert_held(&iocg->waitq.lock);
>>   
>>   	/* make sure that nobody messed with @iocg */
>> -	WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&iocg->active_list));
>> +	WARN_ON_ONCE(list_empty(&iocg->active_list) && iocg->pd.online);
> 
> Can you add a comment explaining why we need the pd.online test?

Yeah, I will add comment in next version.

> 
> Other than the above nits, looks great to me. Please feel free to add
> 
>    Acked-by: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
> 
> Thanks.
> 

-- 
Thanks,
Nan