lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
Patch in this message
/
SubjectRe: kernel BUG at kernel/workqueue.c:291
From
Date
On Tue, 2009-03-03 at 16:23 +0100, Carsten Aulbert wrote:
> Hi Trond,
>
> Trond Myklebust schrieb:
> > struct rpc_task does admittedly share storage for the work queue and the
> > rpc wait queue links, but if that were to be causing the reported
> > corruption, then it would mean that an rpc_task is simultaneously on a
> > wait queue and trying to execute on a work queue. I have no history of
> > that ever having happened.
>
> Anything I might be able to give to you helping you to narrow it down
> somewhat? As written I suspect a certain type of user jobs, but since
> literally 1000s of these ran over the course of several days it might be
> hard to trigger this reliably again.

Could you try triggering it after applying the following patch? I think
I've spotted a potential race condition.

Cheers
Trond
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
SUNRPC: Tighten up the task locking rules in __rpc_execute()
We should probably not be testing any flags after we've cleared the
RPC_TASK_RUNNING flag, since rpc_make_runnable() is then free to assign the
rpc_task to another workqueue, which may then destroy it.

We can fix any races with rpc_make_runnable() by ensuring that we only
clear the RPC_TASK_RUNNING flag while holding the rpc_wait_queue->lock that
the task is supposed to be sleeping on (and then checking whether or not
the task really is sleeping).

Signed-off-by: Trond Myklebust <Trond.Myklebust@netapp.com>
---
net/sunrpc/sched.c | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++-------------
1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)

diff --git a/net/sunrpc/sched.c b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
index 385f427..ff50a05 100644
--- a/net/sunrpc/sched.c
+++ b/net/sunrpc/sched.c
@@ -293,11 +293,6 @@ static void rpc_make_runnable(struct rpc_task *task)
rpc_clear_queued(task);
if (rpc_test_and_set_running(task))
return;
- /* We might have raced */
- if (RPC_IS_QUEUED(task)) {
- rpc_clear_running(task);
- return;
- }
if (RPC_IS_ASYNC(task)) {
int status;

@@ -607,7 +602,9 @@ void rpc_release_calldata(const struct rpc_call_ops *ops, void *calldata)
*/
static void __rpc_execute(struct rpc_task *task)
{
- int status = 0;
+ struct rpc_wait_queue *queue;
+ int task_is_async = RPC_IS_ASYNC(task);
+ int status = 0;

dprintk("RPC: %5u __rpc_execute flags=0x%x\n",
task->tk_pid, task->tk_flags);
@@ -647,15 +644,25 @@ static void __rpc_execute(struct rpc_task *task)
*/
if (!RPC_IS_QUEUED(task))
continue;
- rpc_clear_running(task);
- if (RPC_IS_ASYNC(task)) {
- /* Careful! we may have raced... */
- if (RPC_IS_QUEUED(task))
- return;
- if (rpc_test_and_set_running(task))
- return;
+ /*
+ * The queue->lock protects against races with
+ * rpc_make_runnable().
+ *
+ * Note that once we clear RPC_TASK_RUNNING on an asynchronous
+ * rpc_task, rpc_make_runnable() can assign it to a
+ * different workqueue. We therefore cannot assume that the
+ * rpc_task pointer may still be dereferenced.
+ */
+ queue = task->tk_waitqueue;
+ spin_lock_bh(&queue->lock);
+ if (!RPC_IS_QUEUED(task)) {
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue->lock);
continue;
}
+ rpc_clear_running(task);
+ spin_unlock_bh(&queue->lock);
+ if (task_is_async)
+ return;

/* sync task: sleep here */
dprintk("RPC: %5u sync task going to sleep\n", task->tk_pid);



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-03 22:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans