[lkml]   [2015]   [Apr]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [GIT PULL] kdbus for 4.1-rc1

On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 2:36 PM, Al Viro <> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 15, 2015 at 11:09:48AM +0200, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> I've asked for it, but finding people to review code is hard, as you
>> know. It's only 13k lines long, smaller than a serial port driver (my
>> unit of code review), so it's not all that big.
>> It's smaller than the USB3 host controller driver as well, and very few
>> people ever reviewed that beast :)
>> > For something that's potentially such a core mechanism as a completely
>> > new, massively-adopted IPC, this does send a warning singal.
>> If you know of a way to force others to review code, please let me know.
> Have it in a less nasty state, perhaps? Random question:
> al@duke:~/linux/trees/vfs$ git grep -n -w kdbus_node_idr_lock
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:237:static DECLARE_RWSEM(kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:340: down_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:344: up_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:444: down_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);
> ipc/kdbus/node.c:452: up_write(&kdbus_node_idr_lock);

As Greg said, this is a leftover from times we actually needed a
lookup here. Nice catch, I have a local patch to convert the whole IDR
into an IDA and drop the lock entirely (like kernfs does right now,
for kernfs_node->ino).

> Do you see anything wrong with that? Or with things like that:
> mutex_lock(&pos->lock);
> v_pre = atomic_read(&pos->active);
> if (v_pre >= 0)
> atomic_add_return(KDBUS_NODE_BIAS, &pos->active);
> else if (v_pre == KDBUS_NODE_NEW)
> atomic_set(&pos->active, KDBUS_NODE_RELEASE_DIRECT);
> mutex_unlock(&pos->lock);
> What are the locking rules for ->active/->waitq/->lock? Are those the
> outermost thing in the hierarchy? Or is that dependent on the node location?
> It sure as hell is outside of (at least) ->mmap_sem (by way of
> kdbus_conn_connect() establishing that ->active/->waitq is outside of
> ->conn_rwlock, which due to kdbus_bus_broadcast() nests outside of anything
> taken by kdbus_meta_proc_collect(), which includes ->mmap_sem) and that alone
> brings in a lot...

I'm working on patches to add more comments similar to how we did in
node.c. For now, please see my explanations below:

node->lock is the _innermost_ lock. node->active implements revoke
support for nodes. It follows what kernfs->active does and isn't a
lock in particular. We kinda treat it as rwsem, where down_write() is
the outer-most lock in kdbus and _only_ called without any other lock
held (kdbus_node_deactivate()). Read-side, we never ever block on the
"lock", but only use try-lock. If it fails, the node is dead/revoked.
Therefore, the read-side of 'active' nests almost arbitrarily. We hold
'active'-references almost everywhere, to make sure a node is not
destroyed while we use it. However, we never sleep for an indefinite
time while holding it.
Given that the write-side is the outer-most lock in kdbus, it doesn't
dead-lock against the try-lock readers.

> Document your goddamn locking, would you? It *IS* new code, and you, as you
> say, had very few people working on it, so you don't have the excuses for
> the mess existing in older parts of the tree.

Locking order (outer-most to inner-most):
1) domain->lock
2) names->rwlock
3) endpoint->lock
4) bus->conn_rwlock
5) policy->entries_rwlock
6) connection->lock
7) metadata->lock

mmap_sem nests below metadata->lock. With the rcu-protected exe_file
patches by Davidlohr Bueso, we can even drop that dependency. They
have kinda stalled, though.

Then we have a bunch of data structure protection, which can be called
from any context:
* bus->notify_lock
* pool->lock
* match->mdb_rwlock
* node->lock

Lastly, there're 2 locks which nest around everything and must not be
taken with any lock held:
* handle->rwlock (taken in ioctl-entry)
* bus->notify_flush_lock (taken in work-queue)

General object stacking is:
domain -> bus -> endpoint -> policy -> connection -> {metadata,pool,match,node}
The conn_rwlock protection of the conn-list locks on kdbus_bus is the
only lock that doesn't follow this ordering.


 \ /
  Last update: 2015-04-16 19:41    [W:0.314 / U:21.456 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site