lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2017]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] swait: add missing barrier to swake_up
On Fri, Sep 01, 2017 at 04:14:50PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> swake_up and swake_up_all test the swaitqueue outside the lock,
> but they are missing the barrier that would ensure visibility
> of a previous store that sets the wakeup condition with the
> load that tests the swaitqueue. This could lead to a lost wakeup
> if there is memory reordering. Fix this as prescribed by the
> waitqueue_active comments.

The below commit is in tip..

---

commit 35a2897c2a306cca344ca5c0b43416707018f434
Author: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Date: Thu Jun 15 12:18:28 2017 +0800

sched/wait: Remove the lockless swait_active() check in swake_up*()

Steven Rostedt reported a potential race in RCU core because of
swake_up():

CPU0 CPU1
---- ----
__call_rcu_core() {

spin_lock(rnp_root)
need_wake = __rcu_start_gp() {
rcu_start_gp_advanced() {
gp_flags = FLAG_INIT
}
}

rcu_gp_kthread() {
swait_event_interruptible(wq,
gp_flags & FLAG_INIT) {
spin_lock(q->lock)

*fetch wq->task_list here! *

list_add(wq->task_list, q->task_list)
spin_unlock(q->lock);

*fetch old value of gp_flags here *

spin_unlock(rnp_root)

rcu_gp_kthread_wake() {
swake_up(wq) {
swait_active(wq) {
list_empty(wq->task_list)

} * return false *

if (condition) * false *
schedule();

In this case, a wakeup is missed, which could cause the rcu_gp_kthread
waits for a long time.

The reason of this is that we do a lockless swait_active() check in
swake_up(). To fix this, we can either 1) add a smp_mb() in swake_up()
before swait_active() to provide the proper order or 2) simply remove
the swait_active() in swake_up().

The solution 2 not only fixes this problem but also keeps the swait and
wait API as close as possible, as wake_up() doesn't provide a full
barrier and doesn't do a lockless check of the wait queue either.
Moreover, there are users already using swait_active() to do their quick
checks for the wait queues, so it make less sense that swake_up() and
swake_up_all() do this on their own.

This patch then removes the lockless swait_active() check in swake_up()
and swake_up_all().

Reported-by: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>
Signed-off-by: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Krister Johansen <kjlx@templeofstupid.com>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Paul E. McKenney <paulmck@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: Paul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170615041828.zk3a3sfyudm5p6nl@tardis
Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>

diff --git a/kernel/sched/swait.c b/kernel/sched/swait.c
index 3d5610dcce11..2227e183e202 100644
--- a/kernel/sched/swait.c
+++ b/kernel/sched/swait.c
@@ -33,9 +33,6 @@ void swake_up(struct swait_queue_head *q)
{
unsigned long flags;

- if (!swait_active(q))
- return;
-
raw_spin_lock_irqsave(&q->lock, flags);
swake_up_locked(q);
raw_spin_unlock_irqrestore(&q->lock, flags);
@@ -51,9 +48,6 @@ void swake_up_all(struct swait_queue_head *q)
struct swait_queue *curr;
LIST_HEAD(tmp);

- if (!swait_active(q))
- return;
-
raw_spin_lock_irq(&q->lock);
list_splice_init(&q->task_list, &tmp);
while (!list_empty(&tmp)) {
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2017-09-01 13:17    [W:0.061 / U:9.444 seconds]
©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site