Message-ID: <17EC94B0A072C34B8DCF0D30AD16044A028786CB@BPXM09GP.gisp.nec.co.jp>
Date:	Fri, 16 Oct 2015 02:28:10 +0000
From:	Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@...jp.nec.com>
To:	"J. Bruce Fields" <bfields@...ldses.org>
CC:	Trond Myklebust <trond.myklebust@...marydata.com>,
	Neil Brown <nfbrown@...ell.com>,
	Anna Schumaker <anna.schumaker@...app.com>,
	Jeff Layton <jlayton@...chiereds.net>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	"linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org" <linux-nfs@...r.kernel.org>,
	"netdev@...r.kernel.org" <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] sunrpc: fix waitqueue_active without memory barrier
 in sunrpc 

Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
> J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 11:44:20AM +0000, Kosuke Tatsukawa wrote:
>>> Tatsukawa Kosuke wrote:
>>> > J. Bruce Fields wrote:
>>> >> Thanks for the detailed investigation.
>>> >> 
>>> >> I think it would be worth adding a comment if that might help someone
>>> >> having to reinvestigate this again some day.
>>> > 
>>> > It would be nice, but I find it difficult to write a comment in the
>>> > sunrpc layer why a memory barrier isn't necessary, using the knowledge
>>> > of how nfsd uses it, and the current implementation of the network code.
>>> > 
>>> > Personally, I would prefer removing the call to waitqueue_active() which
>>> > would make the memory barrier totally unnecessary at the cost of a
>>> > spin_lock + spin_unlock by unconditionally calling
>>> > wake_up_interruptible.
>>> 
>>> On second thought, the callbacks will be called frequently from the tcp
>>> code, so it wouldn't be a good idea.
>> 
>> So, I was even considering documenting it like this, if it's not
>> overkill.
>> 
>> Hmm... but if this is right, then we may as well ask why we're doing the
>> wakeups at all.  Might be educational to test the code with them
>> removed.
> 
> sk_write_space will be called in sock_wfree() with UDP/IP each time
> kfree_skb() is called.  With TCP/IP, sk_write_space is only called if
> SOCK_NOSPACE has been set.
> 
> sk_data_ready will be called in both tcp_rcv_established() for TCP/IP
> and in sock_queue_rcv_skb() for UDP/IP.  The latter lacks a memory
> barrier with sk_data_ready called right after __skb_queue_tail().
> I think this hasn't caused any problems because sk_data_ready wasn't
> used.

Actually, svc_udp_data_ready() calls set_bit() which is an atomic
operation.  So there won't be a problem unless svsk is NULL.


>> --b.
>> 
>> commit 0882cfeb39e0
>> Author: J. Bruce Fields <bfields@...hat.com>
>> Date:   Thu Oct 15 16:53:41 2015 -0400
>> 
>>     svcrpc: document lack of some memory barriers.
>>     
>>     Kosuke Tatsukawa points out an odd lack of memory barriers in some sites
>>     here.  I think the code's correct, but it's probably worth documenting.
>>     
>>     Reported-by: Kosuke Tatsukawa <tatsu@...jp.nec.com>
>> 
>> diff --git a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> index 856407fa085e..90480993ec4a 100644
>> --- a/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> +++ b/net/sunrpc/svcsock.c
>> @@ -399,6 +399,25 @@ static int svc_sock_secure_port(struct svc_rqst *rqstp)
>>  	return svc_port_is_privileged(svc_addr(rqstp));
>>  }
>>  
>> +static void svc_no_smp_mb(void)
>> +{
>> +	/*
>> +	 * Kosuke Tatsukawa points out there should normally be an
>> +	 * smp_mb() at the callsites of this function.  (Either that or
>> +	 * we could just drop the waitqueue_active() checks.)
>> +	 *
>> +	 * It appears they aren't currently necessary, though, basically
>> +	 * because nfsd does non-blocking reads from these sockets, so
>> +	 * the only places we wait on this waitqueue is in sendpage and
>> +	 * sendmsg, which won't be waiting for wakeups on newly arrived
>> +	 * data.
>> +	 *
>> +	 * Maybe we should add the memory barriers anyway, but these are
>> +	 * hot paths so we'd need to be convinced there's no sigificant
>> +	 * penalty.
>> +	 */
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * INET callback when data has been received on the socket.
>>   */
>> @@ -414,7 +433,7 @@ static void svc_udp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -433,7 +452,7 @@ static void svc_write_space(struct sock *sk)
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>>  
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq)) {
>>  		dprintk("RPC svc_write_space: someone sleeping on %p\n",
>>  		       svsk);
>> @@ -789,7 +808,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_listen_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>>  	}
>>  
>>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -811,7 +830,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_state_change(struct sock *sk)
>>  		set_bit(XPT_CLOSE, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible_all(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -827,7 +846,7 @@ static void svc_tcp_data_ready(struct sock *sk)
>>  		set_bit(XPT_DATA, &svsk->sk_xprt.xpt_flags);
>>  		svc_xprt_enqueue(&svsk->sk_xprt);
>>  	}
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>>  }
>> @@ -1599,7 +1618,7 @@ static void svc_sock_detach(struct svc_xprt *xprt)
>>  	sk->sk_write_space = svsk->sk_owspace;
>>  
>>  	wq = sk_sleep(sk);
>> -	smp_mb();
>> +	svc_no_smp_mb();
>>  	if (wq && waitqueue_active(wq))
>>  		wake_up_interruptible(wq);
>>  }
---
Kosuke TATSUKAWA  | 3rd IT Platform Department
                  | IT Platform Division, NEC Corporation
                  | tatsu@...jp.nec.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Powered by blists - more mailing lists