lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Jun]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH 2/2] IB/mad: Use IDR for agent IDs
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 11:50:46AM +0300, jackm wrote:
> On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 10:42:18 -0700
> Matthew Wilcox <willy@infradead.org> wrote:
>
> > + rcu_read_lock();
> > + mad_agent = idr_find(&ib_mad_clients, hi_tid);
> > + if (mad_agent
> > && !atomic_inc_not_zero(&mad_agent->refcount))
> > + mad_agent = NULL;
> > + rcu_read_unlock();
>
> Hi Matthew,
>
> I don't see the flow which can explain using atomic_inc_not_zero() here.
>
> The refcount will go to zero only when unregister_mad_agent() is
> called (code below, see asterisks):
> idr_lock(&ib_mad_clients);
> *** idr_remove(&ib_mad_clients, mad_agent_priv->agent.hi_tid);
> idr_unlock(&ib_mad_clients);
>
> flush_workqueue(port_priv->wq);
> ib_cancel_rmpp_recvs(mad_agent_priv);
>
> *** deref_mad_agent(mad_agent_priv);
> [JPM] The call to idr_find in the interrupt context
> would need to occur here for the refcount to have a
> possibility of being zero.
> Shouldn't idr_find in the interrupt context fail, since
> idr_remove has already been invoked?

RCU is tricky. Here's the flow:

CPU 0 CPU 1
rcu_read_lock();
mad_agent = idr_find(&ib_mad_clients, hi_tid);
idr_lock(&ib_mad_clients);
idr_remove(&ib_mad_clients, mad_agent_priv->agent.hi_tid);
idr_unlock(&ib_mad_clients);
flush_workqueue(port_priv->wq);
ib_cancel_rmpp_recvs(mad_agent_priv);
deref_mad_agent(mad_agent_priv);

Now, you're going to argue that CPU 0 is running in interrupt context, but
with virtualisation, it can have the CPU taken away from it at any time.
This window which looks like a couple of instructions long can actually
be seconds long.

> wait_for_completion(&mad_agent_priv->comp);
>
> The refcount will be able to go to zero only after deref_mad_agent is
> called above. Before this, however, idr_remove() has been called --
> so, if my understanding is correct, the idr_find call in
> find_mad_agent() should not succeed since the refcount can get to zero
> only AFTER the idr_remove call.
>
> Could you please explain the flow which can result in idr_find
> succeeding (in the interrupt context) after idr_remove has been invoked
> (in the process context)? Will idr_find succeed even after
> idr_remove, and only fail after kfree_rcu is invoked as well? (or,
> maybe after some garbage-collection delay?)

Ordering is weird in SMP systems. You can appear to have causality
violations when you're operating locklessly (and rcu_read_lock()
is essentially lockless). So we can absolutely observe the store to
agent->refcount before we observe the store to idr->agent.

Documentation/memory-barriers.txt has a LOT more information on this.

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-06-12 14:13    [W:0.063 / U:38.508 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site