lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Feb]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: next-20130117 - kernel BUG with aio
On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 10:53:00AM -0500, Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:37:27 -0800, Kent Overstreet said:
> > On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:59:52PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > Did this get fixed?
>
> > With the patches I sent you, yes - not seeing a new linux-next tree yet?
>
> Well, it's a mixed bag at my end. Finally got a chance to do some more
> testing, and:
>
> 1) next-20130128 didn't show anything in dmesg, but my VirtualBox Windows 7
> images appear to livelock on the way up - the Windows throbber would keep
> going, but it never made any actual progress towards booting. (Part of the
> delay was fixing a next-20121224 environment, and then discovering it
> took Windows *two* reboot cycles to get its act back together after getting
> into that hung state).
>
> 2_ next-20130128 plus the following 3 patches:
>
> Subject: [PATCH 1/3] aio: Fix a null pointer deref in batch_complete_aio
> Subject: [PATCH 3/3] aio-use-cancellation-list-lazily-fix
> Subject: [PATCH 2/3] aio-kill-ki_retry-fix-fix

The "smoosh struct kiocb" patch also needs to be dropped. That causes
aio_rw_vect_retry() to check ki_nbytes/ki_left after they've been
overwritten by aio_complete(), which causes it to return an error when
it shouldn't have, which causes aio_run_iocb() to double complete the
iocb causing put_reqs_available() to be called twice and the count
screwed up.

> VirtualBox appears to be functional (I did 2 complete boot/shutdown
> sequences of both a 32-bit and 64-bit Win7 Enterprise image). *HOWEVER*,
> I saw 3 of these in dmesg:
>
> [ 668.278624] WARNING: at fs/aio.c:348 put_ioctx+0x1c0/0x241()
>
> [ 668.278652] Call Trace:
> [ 668.278660] [<ffffffff8102ed10>] warn_slowpath_common+0x7c/0x96
> [ 668.278665] [<ffffffff8102edc9>] warn_slowpath_null+0x15/0x17
> [ 668.278669] [<ffffffff8114c562>] put_ioctx+0x1c0/0x241
> [ 668.278673] [<ffffffff8114d42a>] sys_io_destroy+0x4c/0x5c
> [ 668.278679] [<ffffffff8160c112>] system_call_fastpath+0x16/0x1b
>
> and the code there says:
>
> WARN_ON(atomic_read(&ctx->reqs_available) > ctx->nr);
>
> which leaves me wondering exactly how we exited the while loop
> just above - is the intention that it loop until reqs_available == ctx->nr
> exactly? Looks like if 'avail' is anything other than exactly 1 in
> that while loop, we can be at a state where reqs_avail == (ctx->nr -1),
> get 'avail=2', do the atomic_add, fall out of the loop, and trigger
> the WARN_ON.
>
> Damned if I see how that can happen though....
>
>
>
>
>
>
>




\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-02-05 19:21    [W:0.059 / U:2.048 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site