[lkml]   [2017]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH v2] cpuset: fix a deadlock due to incomplete patching of cpusets_enabled()
On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 12:48 PM, Andrew Morton
<> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jul 2017 09:46:08 -0700 Dima Zavin <> wrote:
>> In codepaths that use the begin/retry interface for reading
>> mems_allowed_seq with irqs disabled, there exists a race condition that
>> stalls the patch process after only modifying a subset of the
>> static_branch call sites.
>> This problem manifested itself as a dead lock in the slub
>> allocator, inside get_any_partial. The loop reads
>> mems_allowed_seq value (via read_mems_allowed_begin),
>> performs the defrag operation, and then verifies the consistency
>> of mem_allowed via the read_mems_allowed_retry and the cookie
>> returned by xxx_begin. The issue here is that both begin and retry
>> first check if cpusets are enabled via cpusets_enabled() static branch.
>> This branch can be rewritted dynamically (via cpuset_inc) if a new
>> cpuset is created. The x86 jump label code fully synchronizes across
>> all CPUs for every entry it rewrites. If it rewrites only one of the
>> callsites (specifically the one in read_mems_allowed_retry) and then
>> waits for the smp_call_function(do_sync_core) to complete while a CPU is
>> inside the begin/retry section with IRQs off and the mems_allowed value
>> is changed, we can hang. This is because begin() will always return 0
>> (since it wasn't patched yet) while retry() will test the 0 against
>> the actual value of the seq counter.
>> The fix is to cache the value that's returned by cpusets_enabled() at the
>> top of the loop, and only operate on the seqcount (both begin and retry) if
>> it was true.
> Tricky. Hence we should have a nice code comment somewhere describing
> all of this.
>> --- a/include/linux/cpuset.h
>> +++ b/include/linux/cpuset.h
>> @@ -16,6 +16,11 @@
>> #include <linux/mm.h>
>> #include <linux/jump_label.h>
>> +struct cpuset_mems_cookie {
>> + unsigned int seq;
>> + bool was_enabled;
>> +};
> At cpuset_mems_cookie would be a good site - why it exists, what it
> does, when it is used and how.

Will do. I actually had a comment here but removed it in lieu of
commit message :) Will put it back.

 \ /
  Last update: 2017-07-27 23:43    [W:0.122 / U:17.992 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site