lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Jun]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 5/5] CFQ: use proper locking for cache of last hit cic
From
Date
On Wed, 2011-06-08 at 14:42 -0400, Vivek Goyal wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 08, 2011 at 08:18:44PM +0200, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > On Mon, 2011-06-06 at 05:06 +0200, Jens Axboe wrote:
> > > On 2011-06-05 18:26, Paul Bolle wrote:
> > > > @@ -2704,8 +2706,13 @@ static void __cfq_exit_single_io_context(struct cfq_data *cfqd,
> > > > smp_wmb();
> > > > cic->key = cfqd_dead_key(cfqd);
> > > >
> > > > - if (ioc->last_cic == cic)
> > > > + spin_lock_irqsave(&ioc->lock, flags);
> > > > + rcu_read_lock();
> > > > + last_cic = rcu_dereference(ioc->last_cic);
> > > > + rcu_read_unlock();
> > > > + if (last_cic == cic)
> > > > rcu_assign_pointer(ioc->last_cic, NULL);
> > > > + spin_unlock_irqrestore(&ioc->lock, flags);
> > >
> > > We don't need the ioc->lock for checking the cache, it would in fact
> > > defeat the purpose of using RCU.
> >
> > Just to show that I'm RCU-challenged, is that because:
> > 1) my use of locking on ioc->lock defends for a race that is not
> > actually possible; or
> > 2) the worst thing that could happen is that some new and correct value
> > of ioc->last_cic will be replaced with NULL, which is simply not a big
> > deal?
>
> I don't understand this point.

That could be because I don't really get all the RCU voodoo, nor how
this all interacts with the io_contect->lock here, so I probably asked
an impossible question.

> All ioc->ioc_data updates are under
> ioc->lock except the one __cfq_exit_single_io_context() and that's what
> jens patch fixed. So clearly there was atleast one race where we were
> doing a value update without taking appropriate lock.
>
> Why do you think that some new and correct value will be replaced
> by NULL?

Jens updated the code to
if (rcu_dereference(ioc->ioc_data) == cic) {
spin_lock(&ioc->lock);
rcu_assign_pointer(ioc->ioc_data, NULL);
spin_unlock(&ioc->lock);
}
I basically suggested (except for an apparently useless
rcu_read_lock() / rcu_read_unlock() pair and using spin_lock_irqsave()
etc.):
spin_lock(&ioc->lock);
if (rcu_dereference(ioc->ioc_data) == cic)
rcu_assign_pointer(ioc->ioc_data, NULL);
spin_unlock(&ioc->lock);
Ie, I thought that reads of and updates to ioc->ioc_data should be done
with ioc->lock held. My reasoning was that in Jens code ioc->ioc_data
might already be updated (by another thread, or whatever) and thus not
be equal to cic by the time it's updated to NULL. See, in my
understanding ioc->ioc_data could be equal to cic when it's
rcu_dereference()'d, but unequal to cic by the time it's
rcu_assign_pointer()'d to NULL.


Paul Bolle



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-06-08 21:35    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans