lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2010]   [Jun]   [19]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: while_each_thread() under rcu_read_lock() is broken?
From
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Frederic Weisbecker
<fweisbec@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:00:54PM -0700, Mandeep Baines wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > (add cc's)
>> >
>> > Hmm. Once I sent this patch, I suddenly realized with horror that
>> > while_each_thread() is NOT safe under rcu_read_lock(). Both
>> > do_each_thread/while_each_thread or do/while_each_thread() can
>> > race with exec().
>> >
>> > Yes, it is safe to do next_thread() or next_task(). But:
>> >
>> >        #define while_each_thread(g, t) \
>> >                while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g)
>> >
>> > suppose that t is not the group leader, and it does de_thread() and then
>> > release_task(g). After that next_thread(t) returns t, not g, and the loop
>> > will never stop.
>> >
>> > I _really_ hope I missed something, will recheck tomorrow with the fresh
>> > head. Still I'd like to share my concerns...
>> >
>>
>> Yep. You're right. Not sure what I was thinking. This is only case
>> where do_each_thread
>> is protected by an rcu_read_lock. All others, correctly use read_lock.
>
>
>
> cgroup does too.
> taskstats also uses rcu with while_each_threads, and may be some
> others.
>
> It's not your fault, theses iterators are supposed to be rcu safe,
> we are just encountering a bad race :)
>

Thanks:) Feel less dumb now. My quick grep only turned up hung_task:

$ find . -name \*.c | xargs fgrep -B 10 do_each_thread | grep rcu
./kernel/hung_task.c- rcu_read_lock();
>
>
>> > If I am right, probably we can fix this, something like
>> >
>> >        #define while_each_thread(g, t) \
>> >                while ((t = next_thread(t)) != g && pid_alive(g))
>> >
>>
>> This seems like a reasonable approach. Maybe call it:
>>
>> while_each_thread_maybe_rcu() :)
>
>
>
> Hmm, no while_each_thread must really be rcu_safe.
>

I didn't realize there were other cases which need while_each_thread to
be rcu-safe. For hung_task, its OK to break out on a release_task(g).
We'll just check the threads we missed on the next iteration.

>
>
>>
>> This makes hung_task a little less useful for failure fencing since
>> this (and rcu_lock_break)
>> increases the potential for never examining all threads but its still
>> a nice lightweight diagnostic
>> for finding bugs.
>
>
>
> In fact may be we could just drop the rcu break, people who really
> care about latencies can use the preemptable version.
>

For large systems, you'd pin a CPU for a very long time checking for
hung_tasks. You'd cause a lot of memory pressure by delaying the
grace period for such a long time. You'd also cause softlockups with
the huge burst of call_rcus being processed by rcu_process_callbacks.

> I know the worry is more about delaying too much the grace period if
> we walk a too long task list, but I don't think it's really a problem.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2010-06-19 17:47    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans